Abstract
Krueger (1970a, 1970b, 1982) has demonstrated that subjects can search for target letters within words faster than they can complete an equivalent search through nonwords, and he further demonstrated that the effect did not arise during the comparison stage. The present study involved three experiments in which the usual word advantage disappeared either when subjects knew where within a display the target item would appear (i.e., it was always the first letter), or when all the component letters were encoded into memory before the task began (i.e., a memory-search task). These data, in conjunction with Krueger's, where interpreted as localizing at least one (and possibly the only) source of the word-nonword difference in this task to the events that occur during the item-to-item transitions subjects make when scanning the letter arrays. That is, these transitions are faster for words than nonwords, and it was suggested that the time difference may emerge because although all the letters from within a word appear to be available in memory before the scan begins, this seems not to be true for consonant arrays. Given that this is the case, part of the word-nonword difference may be attributable to subsequent encoding events that would be needed for the consonant arrays as the scan moves from letter to letter.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Barron, R. W., &Pittenger, J. B. (1974). The effect of orthographic structure and lexical meaning on same-different judgements.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,26, 566–581.
Drewnowski, A., &Healy, A. F. (1977). Detection errors onthe andand: Evidence for reading units larger than the word.Memory& Cognition,5, 636–647.
Gilford, R. M., &Juola, J. F. (1976). Familiarity effects on memory search and visual search.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,7, 142–144.
Gough, P. B. (1972). One second of reading. InJ. Kavanagh & I. Mattingly (Eds.),Language by ear and by eye (pp. 331–358). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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., &McNamera, T. P. (1987). Detecting letters in continuous text: Effects of display size.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,13, 279–290.
Johnson, N. F. (1970). The role of chunking and organization in the process of recall. InG. Bower, (Ed.),Psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 4, pp. 171–247). New York: Academic Press.
Johnson, N. F. (1975). On the function of letters in word identification: Some data and a preliminary model.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,14, 17–29.
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. 91–126). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Johnson, N. F. (1981). Integration processes in word recognition. In O. Tzeng & H. Singer (Eds.),Perception of print: Reading research in experimental psychology (pp. 29–64). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Johnson, N. F. (1986). On looking at letters within words: Do we “see” them in memory?Journal of Memory & Language,25, 558–570.
Johnson, N. F., Pugh, K. R., &Blum, A. J. (1989). More on the way we “see” letters from words within memory.Journal of Memory & Language,28, 155–163.
Johnson, N. F., Turner-Lyga, M., &Petregrew, B. 5. (1986). Part-whole relationships in the processing of small visual patterns.Memory & Cognition,14, 5–16.
Johnston, J. C., &McClelland, J. L. (1980). Experimental tests of a model of word identification.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,19, 503–524.
Krueger, L. E. (l970a). Search time in a redundant visual display.Journal of Experimental Psychology,83, 391–399.
Krueger, L. E. (l970b). Visual comparison in a redundant display.Cognitive Psychology,1, 341–357.
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). Why search for target absence is so slow (and carefull): The more targets there are the more likely you are to miss one.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,6, 662–685.
McNamara, T., Ward, N., &Juola, J. F. (1978). Visual search for letters in intact and mixed-case words and nonwords.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,12, 297–300.
Mewhort, D. J. K. (1974). Accuracy and order of report in tachistoscopic identification.Canadian Journal of Psychology,28, 383–398.
Mewhort, D. J. K., &Beal, A. L. (1977). Mechanisms of word identification.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,3, 629–640.
Sloboda, J. A. (1976). Decision times for word and letter search: A wholistic word identification model examined.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,15, 93–101.
Sloboda, J. A. (1977). The locus of the word-priority effect in a target-detection task.Memory & Cognition,5, 371–376.
Sternberg, S. (1966). High speed scanning in memory.Science,153, 652–654.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
—Accepted by previous editor, Alice F. Healy
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Johnson, N.F., Carnot, M.J. On time differences in searching for letters in words and nonwords: Do they emerge during the initial encoding or the subsequent scan?. Mem Cogn 18, 31–39 (1990). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202643
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202643