Abstract
A widely accepted perceptual principle is that familiar patterns are easier to recognize than are less familiar patterns. Previous letter-recognition studies are examined to determine whethermore frequent letters in English are easier to recognize than less frequent letters (the letterfrequency effect). Most studies required subjects to identify single letters, while some measured reaction time to compare two letters or name or classify a letter. The results, based on over 800, 000 observations from 58 studies that span nearly 100 years, showed that: (1) there is no letter-frequency effect in recognition studies in which subjects simply report letters, and (2) there is a letter-frequency effect in reaction time studies. The presence of la letter-frequency effect for reaction time studies is interpreted as demonstrating an effect of familiarity on a comparison stage and perhaps a response stage, but not on input coding. The absence of a letter-frequency effect for single-letter recognition studies is interpreted as limiting the generality of the effect of familiarity on perception and as limiting the generality of models that correctly predict frequency effects for words. Alternative explanations for the absence of a letter-frequency effect are discussed.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Reference Notes
Appelman, I. B., & Mayzner, M. S. Unpublished data with a multiple-random-staircase masking procedure, 1981.
Rumelhart D. E.A multicomponent theory of confusion among briefly exposed alphabetic characters. CHIP 22 from the Center for Human Information Processing, University of California, San Diego, 1971.
Mayzner, M. S., & Habinek, J. K.Visual information processing of letters and nonletters. Paper presented at the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Denver, Colorado, 1975.
References
Ambler, B. A., &Proctor, J. D. The familiarity effect for singleletter pairs.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1976,2, 222–234.
Apkarian-Stielau, P., &Loomis, J. M. A comparison of tactile and blurred visual form perception.Perception A Psychophysics, 1975,18, 362–368.
Attneave, F. Psychological probability as a function of experienced frequency.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1953,46, 81–86.
Baddeley, A. D., Conrad, R., &Thomson, W. E. Letter structure in the English language.Nature, 1960,186, 414–416.
Banister, H. Block capital letters as tests of visual acuity.British Journal of Ophthalmology, 1927,11, 49–61.
Banister, H., Hartridoe, H., & Lythgoe, R. J. The influence of illumination on visual acuity. InProceedings of the Optical Convention. London: 1926.
Banister, H., Hartridoe, H., &Lythgoe, R. J. The effect of illumination and other factors on the acuity of vision.British Journal of Ophthalmology, 1927,11, 321–330.
Bell, G. L. The effect of symbol frequency in legibility testing.Human Factors, 1967,9, 471–478. (a)
Bell, G. L.Studies of display symbol legibility: Part XVI. The legibility of teletypewriter symbols on television (ESD-TR-67-104). Hanscom Field, Mass: USAF Electronic Systems Division, April 1967. (NTIS No. AD 655 356) (b)
Birns, M. L.The effect of group size and preparatory set on recognition of alphabetic inputs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1974.
Bouma, H. Visual recognition of isolated lower-case letters.Vision Research, 1971,11, 459–474.
Broadbent, D. E. Word-frequency effect and response bias.Psychological Review, 1967,74, 1–15.
Burns, R. F. Recognition of rotated and reflected alphabetic characters (Doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1973).Dissertation Abstracts International, 1974,35, 535B. (University Microfilms No. 74-15920)
Burtt, H. E., &Basch, C. Legibility of Bodoni, Basker ville Roman, and Cheltenham type faces.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1923,7, 237–245.
Clement, D. E., &Carpenter, J. S. Relative discriminability of visually-presented letter pairs using a same-different choicereaction time task.Psychonomic Science, 1970,20, 363–364.
Cosky, M. J. The role of letter recognition in word recognition.Memory a Cognition, 1976,4, 207–214.
Craig, J. C. A confusion matrix for tactually presented letters.Perception & Psychophysics, 1979,26, 409–411.
Crosland, H. R., &Johnson, G. The range of apprehension as affected by inter-letter hair-spacing and by the characteristics of individual letters.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1928,12, 82–124.
Dockeray, F. C. The span of vision in reading and the legibility of letters.Journal of Educational Psychology, 1910,1, 123–131.
Egeth, H., &Blecker, D. Differential effects of familiarity on judgments of sameness and difference.Perception & Psychophysics, 1971,9, 321–326.
Egeth, H., Brownell, H., &Geoffrion, L. Testing the role of symmetry in letter matching.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1976,2, 429–434.
Engel, G. R., Dougherty, W. G., &Jones, G. B. Correlation and letter recognition.Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1973,27, 317–326.
Ewing, A. E. The value of letters and characters as visual tests. InAn International Congress of Ophthalmology, Washington, D.C:1922.
Fischer, H. Visual information processing of degraded alpha-betic inputs (Doctoral dissertation, Polytechnic Institute of New York, 1979).Dissertation Abstracts International, 1979,40, 1398B. (University Microfilms No. 79-20777)
Fisher, D. F., Monty, R. A., &Glucksberg, S., Visual confusion matrices: Fact or artifact?Journal of Psychology, 1969,71, 111–125.
Fox, J. The use of structural diagnostics in recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1975,104, 57–67.
Friden, T. P. The effects of familiarity in a perceptual matching task.Perception & Psychophysics, 1973,14, 487–492.
Gaines, H. F.Cryptanalysis: A study of ciphers and their solutions. New York: Dover, 1939.
Geyer, L. H. Recognition and confusion of the lowercase alphabet.Perception & Psychophysics, 1977,22, 487–490.
Gilmore, G. C., Hersh, H., Caramazza, A., &Griffin, J. Multidimensional letter similarity derived from recognition errors.Perception & Psychophysics, 1979,25, 425–431.
Goble, L. G. Filtered 2-dimensional discrete Fourier and Walsh transform correlation with recognition errors and similarity judgments (Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1975).Dissertation Abstracts International, 1976,36, 5334B. (University Microfilms No. 76-09401)
Hall, J. F. Learning as a function of word-frequency.American Journal of Psychology, 1954,67, 138–140.
Harris, W. P., Green, B. F., Wilson, E. A., &Liaudansky, L. H.The design of characters for the Charactron (Tech. Rep. 117). Lexington, Mass: Lincoln Laboratory, May 1956. (NTIS No. AD 101 142)
Hartridge, H., &Owen, H. B. Test types.British Journal of Ophthalmology, 1922,6, 543–549.
Henle, M. An experimental investigation of past experience as a determinant of visual form perception.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1942,30, 1–22.
Hock, H. S., Gordon, G. P., &Marcus, N. Individual differences in the detection of embedded figures.Perception & Psychophysics, 1974,15, 47–52.
Hodge, D. C. Legibility of a uniform-strokewidth alphabet: I. Relative legibility of upper and lower case letters.Journal of Engineering Psychology, 1962,1, 34–46.
Howell, W. C., &Kraft, C. L.Size, blur, and contrast as variables affecting the legibility of alpha-numeric symbols on radar-type displays (WADC Tech. Rep. 59-536). Columbus: Laboratory of Aviation Psychology, Ohio State University, September 1959. (NTIS No. AD 232 889)
Kikuchi, T., Yamashita, Y., Sagawa, K., &Wake, T. An analysis of tactile letter confusions.Perception & Psychophysics, 1979,26, 295–301.
Kinney, G. C., Marsetta, M., &Showman, D. J.Studies in display symbol legibility: Part XII The legibility of alphanumeric symbols for digitalized television (ESD-TR-66-117). Hanscom Filed, Mass: USAF Electronic Systems Division, November 1966. (NTIS No. AD 646 660)
Kinney, G., &Showman, D. Studies of display symbol legibility: Part XIII.Studies of the legibility of alphanumeric symbols in the BUIC symbol (ESD-TR-66-302). Hanscom Field, Mass: USAF Electronic Systems Division, August 1966. (NTIS No. AD 638 664)
Krueger, L. E. Effect of letter-pair frequency and orientation on speed of 1 “same”-“different” judgments by children and adults.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1973,2, 431–433.
Krueger, L. E. Familiarity effects in visual information processing.Psychological Bulletin, 1975,82, 949–974.
Kučera, H., &Francis, W. N.Computational analysis of presentday American English. Providence, R.I: Brown University Press, 1967.
Kuennapas, T., &Janson, A.-J. Multidimensional similarity of letters.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1969,28, 3–12.
Levine, D. M. Effect of delay times and noise fields on pattern recognition of sequential inputs (Doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1973).Dissertation Abstracts International, 1973,34, 896B. (University Microfilms No. 73-19396)
Loomis, J. M. Tactile letter recognition under different modes of stimulus presentation.Perception & Psychophysics, 1974,16, 401–408.
Loomis, J. M., &Apkarian-Stielau, P. A lateral masking effect in tactile and blurred visual letter recognition.Perception & Psychophysics, 1976,20, 221–226.
Lysing, H.Secret writing. New York: D. Kemp, 1936.
Maddox, M. E., Burnette, J. T., &Gutmann, J. C., Font comparisons for 5 × 7 dot matrix characters.Human Factors, 1977,19, 89–93.
Mayzner, M. S. Studies of visual information processing in man. In R. Solso (Ed.),Information processing and cognition; The Loyola Symposium. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum, 1975.
Mayzner, M. S., &Tresselt, M. E. Tables of single-letter and digram frequency counts for various word-length and letterposition combinations.Psychonomic Monograph Supplements, 1965,1, 13–32.
Mayzner, M. S., Tresselt, M. E., Adler, S., &Schoenberg, K. M. Correlations between subject generated letter frequencies and observed frequencies in English.Psychonomic Science, 1964,1, 295–296.
Morton, J. The effects of context on the visual duration threshold for words.British Journal of Psychology, 1964,55, 165–180.
Morton, J. Interaction of information in word recognition.Psychological Review, 1969,76, 165–178.
Neisser, U.Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967,
Pierce, J. Some sources of artifact in studies of the tachistoscopic perception of words.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1963,66, 363–370,
Podgorny, P., &Garner, W. R. Reaction time as a measure of inter- and intraobject visual similarity: Letters of the alphabet.Perception & Psychophysics, 1979,26, 37–52.
Popp, H. M. Visual discrimination of alphabet letters.Reading Teacher, 1964,17, 221–226.
Posner, M. I. Abstraction and the process of recognition. In G. H. Bower & J. T. Spence (Eds.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 3). New York: Academic Press, 1969.
Posner, M. I., &Mitchell, R. F. Chronometrie analysis of classification.Psychological Review, 1967,74, 392–409.
Pratt, F.Secret and urgent. Garden City, N.Y: Blue Ribbon Books, 1939.
Reinwald, F. L.Legibility of symbols of the AND J0400, Mackworth, and Berger type-faces at vertical and horizontal angles of presentation and the construction and test of legi-bility of a revised type-face (RADC-TR-55-78). Hamilton, N.Y: Department of Psychology, Colgate University, 1955. (NTIS No. AD 075 629)
Robinson, J. S., Brown, L. T., &Hayes, W. H. Test of effects of past experience on perception.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1964,18, 953–956.
Roethlein, B. E. The relative legibility of different faces of printing types.American Journal of Psychology, 1912,23, 1–36.
Rogers, L. J.Study of the relationship between visual information processing and learning. Unpublished master’s thesis, New York University, 1973.
Rudie, D. D. Recognition of alphabetic inputs as a function of set size and confusability (Doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1974).Dissertation Abstracts International, 1976,37, 1466B. (University Microfilms No. 76-19609)
Sanford, E. C., The relative legibility of the small letters.American Journal of Psychology, 1887,1, 402–435.
Showman, D. J.Studies of display symbol legibility: Part X. The relative legibility of Leroy and Lincoln/MITRE alphanumeric symbols (ESD-TR-66-115). Hanscom Field, Mass: USAF Electronic Systems Division, August 1966. (NTIS No. AD 640 170)
Shurtleff, D. A.Studies of display symbol legibility: XXL The relative legibility of symbols formed from matrices of dots (ESD-TR-69-432). Hanscom Field, Mass: USAF Electronic Systems Division, February 1970. (NTIS No. AD 702 491) (a)
Shurtleff, D. A.Studies of display symbol legibility: XXII. The relative legibility of four symbol sets made with a five by seven dot matrix (ESD-TR-70-26). Hanscom Field, Mass: USAF Electronic Systems Division, March 1970. (NTIS No. AD 704 136)(b)
Shurtleff, D., Marsetta, M., &Showman, D.Studies of display symbol legibility: Part IX. The effects of resolution, size, and viewing angle of legibility (ESD-TR-65-411). Hanscom Field, Mass: USAF Electronic Systems Division, May 1966. (NTIS No. AD 633 833)
Siegel, S.Nonparametric statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956.
Smith, E. E., &Spoehr, K. T. The perception of printed English: A theoretical perspective. In B. H. Kantowitz (Ed.),Human information processing: Tutorials in performance and cognition. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum, 1974.
Smith, N. B. Matching ability as a factor in first grade reading.Journal of Educational Psychology, 1928,19, 560–571.
Snyder, H. L., &Maddox, M. E.Information transfer from computer-generated dot-matrix displays (HFL-78-3/ARO-78-1). Blacksburg: Human Factors Laboratory, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, October 1978. (NTIS No. ADA063 505)
Solso, R. L., &King, J. F. Frequency and versatility of letters in the English language.Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 1976,8, 283–286.
Thorndike, E. L., &Lorge, I.The teacher’s word book of 30, 000 words. New York: Columbia University, 1944.
Tinker, M. A. The relative legibility of the letters, the digits, and of certain mathematical signs.Journal of General Psychology, 1928,1, 472–495.
Townsend, J. T. Theoretical analysis of an alphabetic confusion matrix.Perception & Psychophysics, 1971,9, 40–50 (a)
Townsend, J. T. Alphabetic confusion: A test of models for individuals.Perception & Psychophysics, 1971,9, 449–454. (b)
Underwood, B. J., &Schulz, R. W.Meaningfulness and verbal learning. New York: Lippincott, 1960.
Uttal, W. R. Masking of alphabetic character recognition by dynamic visual noise (DVN).Perception & Psychophysics, 1969,6, 121–128.
Uttal, W. R., &Smith, P. Recognition of alphabetic characters during voluntary eye movements.Perception & Psychophysics, 1968,3, 257–264.
Winer, B. J.Statistical principles in experimental design (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.
Young, C. I., &Hodge, M. H. Familiarity effects in a samedifferent task with simultaneous and successive presentation.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1980,16, 461–464.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by NSF Grant DAR 7923477
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Appelman, I.B., Mayzner, M.S. The letter-frequency effect and the generality of familiarity effects on perception. Perception & Psychophysics 30, 436–446 (1981). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204839
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204839