Abstract
Do words, as familiar units or gestalts, tend to swallow up and conceal their letter components (Pillsbury, 1897)? Letters typically are detected faster and more accurately in words than in nonwords (i.e., scrambled collections of letters), and in more frequent words than in less frequent words. However, a word advantage at encoding, where the representation of the string is formed, might compensate for, and thus mask, a word disadvantage at decoding and comparison, where the component letters of the representation are accessed and compared with the target letter. To better reveal any such word disadvantage, a task was used in this study that increased the amount of letter processing. Subjects judged whether a letter was repeated within a six-letter word or a nonword (Experiment 1; intraword letter repetition) or was repeated between two adjacent unrelated six-letter words or nonwords (Experiment 2; interword letter repetition). Contrary to Pillsbury's word unitization hypothesis, both types of letter repetition (intraword and interword) were detected faster and just as accurately with words as with nonwords. In Experiment 2, however, interword letter repetition was detected less accurately on common words (but not on rare words or third-order pseudowords) than on the corresponding nonwords. Thus, although the familiar word does not deny access to its own component letters, it does make their comparison with letters from other words more difficult.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Abramovici, S. (1983). Errors in proofreading: Evidence for syntactic control of letter processing?Memory & Cognition,11,258–261
Besner, D., Davelaar, E., Alcott, D., &Parry, P. (1984). Wholistic reading of alphabetic print: Evidence from the FDM and the FBI In L. Henderson (Ed.),Orthographies and reading: Perspectives from cognitive psychology, neuropsychology, and linguistics (pp. 121–135) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Corcoran, D. W. J. (1966). An acoustic factor in letter cancellation.Nature,210, 658.
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., &Krueger, L. E. (1983). Effect of letter orientation and sequential redundancy on the speed of letter search.Memory & Cognition,11, 181–191.
Haber, R. N., &Schinoler, R. M. (1981). Error in proofreading: Evidence of syntactic control of letter processing?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,7, 573–579
Healy, A. F. (1976). Detection errors on the word the: Evidence for reading units larger than letters.Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception & Performance,2, 235–242.
Healy, A. F. (1980). Proofreading errors on the word the: New evidence on reading units.Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance,6, 45–57
Healy, A F., &Drewnowski, A. (1983). Investigating the boundaries of reading units' Letter detection in misspelled words.Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance,9, 413–426.
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
Henderson, L. (1975) Do words conceal their component letters? A critique of Johnson (1975) on the visual perception of words.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,14, 648–650.
Johnson, N. F. (1977). A pattern-unit model of word identification. In D. LaBerge & S. J. Samuels (Eds.),Basic processes in reading: Perception and comprehension (pp. 91–125). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Johnson, N. F. (1981). Integration processes m word recognition. In O. J. L. Tzeng & H. Singer (Eds.),Perception of print: Reading research in experimental psychology (pp. 29–63). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Josnson, N. F. (1986). On looking at letters within words: Do we “see” them in memory?Journal of Memory & Language, 25, 558–570.
Krueger, L. E. (1969).Search time m a redundant visual display. Unpublished doctoral disseration, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Krueger, L. E. (1970). Search time in a redundant visual display.Journal of Experimental Psychology,83, 391–399.
Krueger, L. E. (1975). Familiarity effects in visual information processing.Psychological Bulletin,82, 949–974.
Krueger, L. E. (1982). A word-superiority effect with print and braille characters.Perception & Psychophysics,31, 345–352.
Krueger, L. E., &Shapiro, R. G. (1980). Repeating the target neither speeds nor slows its detection: Evidence for independent channels in letter processing.Perception & Psychophysics,28, 68–76.
Kučera, H., &Francis, W. N. (1967).Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
Lawry, J. A. (1980). The interfering effect of word perception on letter identification.Perception & Psychophysics,28, 577–588.
Levy, B. A. (1983). Proofreading familiar text: Constraints on visual processing.Memory & Cognition,11, 1–12.
Levy, B. A., &Begin, J. (1984). Proofreading familiar text: Allocating resources to perceptual and conceptual processes.Memory & Cognition,12, 621–632.
Levy, B. A., Newell, S., Snyder, J., &Timmins, K. (1986). Processing changes across reading encounters.Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, & Cognition,12, 467–478.
O'Hara, W. P. (1980). Evidence in support of word unitization.Perception & Psychophysics,27, 390–402.
O'Hara, W., &Eriksen, C. W. (1979). Word unitization examined using an interference paradigm.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,14, 81–84
Pillsbury, W. B. (1897). A study in apperception.American Journal of Psychology,8, 315–393.
Proctor, J. D., &Healy, A. F. (1985). A secondary-task analysis of a word familiarity effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,11, 286–303.
Schindler, R. M. (1978). The effect of prose context on visual search for letters.Memory & Cognition,6, 124–130.
Silverman, W. P. (1976). Can “words” be processed as integrated units?Perception & Psychophysics,20, 143–152.
Silverman, W. P. (1977). Are visually presented one-syllable words integral stimuli?Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,9, 103–105.
Silverman, W. P. (1985). Two types of word superiority effects in a speeded matching task.Memory & Cognition,13, 50–56.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Krueger, L.E. Detection of intraword and interword letter repetition: A test of the word unitization hypothesis. Memory & Cognition 17, 48–57 (1989). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199556
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199556