Abstract
In searching for a target letter while reading, participants make more omissions when the target letter is embedded in frequent function words than when it is embedded in less frequent content words. According to the guidance-organization (GO) model, this occurs because high-frequency function words are processed faster than low-frequency content words, leaving less time available for letter processing. We tested this hypothesis in three experiments by increasing word-processing speed through text repetition, which should translate into higher omission rates. Participants either read the text and searched for the target letter once or read the text three times and searched for a target letter on all readings or the final reading only. In all the experiments in which participants could not anticipate the target letter to be used, results revealed the presence of a large missingletter effect that was unaffected by familiarity with the text. In addition, when participants knew from the start the target letter to be used on the final reading, the missing-letter effect was eliminated. Repeated search of the same text for different targets increased omissions equally for function words and content words, but this finding was present even when a new text was used, suggesting that repetition of the search task, rather than familiarity with the text, was responsible.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Assink, E. M. H., &Knuijt, P. P. N. A. (2000). Reading development and attention to letters in words.Contemporary Educational Psychology,25, 347–362.
Assink, E. M. H., van Well, S., &Knuijt, P. P. N. A. (2003). Contrasting effects of age of acquisition in lexical decision and letter detection.American Journal of Psychology,116, 367–387.
Corcoran, D. W. J. (1966). An acoustic factor in letter cancellation.Nature,210, 658.
Cunningham, T. F..Healy, A. F..Kanengiser, N..Chizzick, L., &Willitts, R. L. (1988). Investigating the boundaries of reading units across ages and reading levels.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,45, 175–208.
Drewnowski, A. (1978). Detection errors on the word the: Evidence for the acquisition of reading levels.Memory & Cognition,6, 403–409.
Drewnowski, A. (1981). Missing -ing in reading: Developmental changes in reading units.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,31, 154–168.
Drewnowski, A., &Healy, A. F. (1977). Detection errors on the and and: Evidence for reading units larger than the word.Memory & Cognition,5, 636–647.
Greenberg, S. N..Healy, A. F..Koriat, A., &Kreiner, H. (2004). The GO model: A reconsideration of the role of structural units in guiding and organizing text on line.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,11, 428–433.
Greenberg, S. N..Inhoff, A. W., &Weger, U. W. (2006). The impact of letter detection on eye movement patterns during reading: Reconsidering lexical analysis in connected text as a function of task.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,59, 987–995.
Greenberg, S. N., &Tai, J. (2001). Letter detection in very familiar texts.Memory & Cognition,29, 1088–1095.
Healy, A. F. (1994). Letter detection: A window to unitization and other cognitive processes in reading text.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,1, 333–344.
Healy, A. F..Oliver, W. L., &McNamara, T. P. (1987). Detecting letters in continuous text: Effects of display size.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,13, 279–290.
Koriat, A., &Greenberg, S. N. (1991). Syntactic control of letter detection: Evidence from English and Hebrew nonwords.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,17, 1035–1050.
Koriat, A., &Greenberg, S. N. (1994). The extraction of phrase structure during reading: Evidence from letter detection errors.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,1, 345–356.
Levy, B. A. (1983). Proofreading familiar text: Constraints on visual processing.Memory & Cognition,11, 1–12.
Levy, B. A. (2001). Text processing: Memory representations mediate fluent reading. In M. Naveh-Benjamin, M. Moscovitch, & H. L. Roediger III (Eds.),Perspectives on human memory and cognitive aging: Essays in honour of Fergus Craik (pp. 83–98). New York: Psychology Press.
Levy, B. A., Di Persio, R., &Hollingshead, A. (1992). Fluent reread ing: Repetition, automaticity, and discrepancy.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 957–971.
Loftus, G. R., &Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,1, 476–490.
Masson, M. E. J., &Loftus, G. R. (2003). Using confidence intervals for graphically based data interpretation.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,57, 203–220.
Mohan, P. J. (1978). Acoustic factors in letter cancellation: Developmental considerations.Developmental Psychology,14, 117–118.
Moravcsik, J. E., &Healy, A. F. (1995). Effect of meaning on letter detection.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 82–95.
Oliver, W. L..Healy, A. F., &Mross, E. F. (2005). Trade-offs in detecting letters and comprehending text.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,59, 159–167.
New, B..Pallier, C..Ferrand, L., &Matos, R. (2001). Une base de données lexicales du français contemporain sur Internet: Lexique [A lexical database for contemporary French on the Internet: Lexique].L’Année Psychologique,101, 447–462.
Raney, G. E. (2003). A context-dependent representation model for explaining text repetition effects.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,10, 15–28.
Raney, G. E., &Rayner, K. (1995). Word frequency effects and eye movements during two readings of a text.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,49, 151–173.
Rayner, K..Raney, G. E., &Pollatsek, A. (1995). Eye movements and discourse processing. In R. F. Lorch Jr., & E. J. O’Brien (Eds.),Sources of coherence in reading (pp. 9–35). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Read, J. D. (1983). Detection of Fs in a single statement: The role of phonetic recoding.Memory & Cognition,11, 390–399.
Roy-Charland, A., &Saint-Aubin, J. (2006). The interaction of word frequency and word class: A test of the GO model’s account of the missing-letter effect.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,59, 38–45.
Roy-Charland, A., Saint-Aubin, J., Klein, R. M., &Lawrence, M. (2007). Eye movements as direct tests of the GO model for the missing-letter effect.Perception & Psychophysics,69, 324–337.
Saint-Aubin, J., &Klein, R. M. (2001). Influence of parafoveal processing on the missing-letter effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,27, 318–334.
Saint-Aubin, J., &Klein, R. M. (2004). One missing-letter effect: Two methods of assessment.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,58, 61–66.
Saint-Aubin, J..Klein, R. M., &Landry, T. (2005). Age changes in the missing-letter effect revisited.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,91, 158–182.
Saint-Aubin, J..Klein, R. M., &Roy-Charland, A. (2003). Direct assessments of the processing time hypothesis for the missing-letter effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,29, 1191–1210.
Saint-Aubin, J., &Poirier, M. (1997). The influence of word function in the missing-letter effect: Further evidence from French.Memory & Cognition,25, 666–676.
Schneider, V. I., &Healy, A. F. (1993). Detecting phonemes and letters in text: Interactions between different types and levels of processes.Memory & Cognition,21, 739–751.
Schneider, V. I..Healy, A. F., &Gesi, A. T. (1991). The role of phonetic processes in letter detection: A reevaluation.Journal of Memory & Language,30, 294–318.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by discovery grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada to J.S.-A. and to R.M.K.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Saint-Aubin, J., Roy-Charland, A. & Klein, R.M. The influence of multiple readings on the missing-letter effect revisited. Memory & Cognition 35, 1578–1587 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193492
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193492