Abstract
To study the relative importance of various letter segments for letter recognition, we presented each letter of two alphabets, English and Hebrew, preceded by a brief presentation of an intact or a mutilated version of it. Mutilations were done by eliminating a specific segment. It was reasoned that the more critical the eliminated segment is, the less the mutilated version activates the letter code in memory and, thus, the longer it takes to name the subsequently presented target letter. This procedure was successful in detecting significant differences consistent with our expectations. In further analysis, it was shown that the latency data were highly correlated with the distinctiveness of the mutilated segment, its uniqueness over the alphabet, its impact on the letter global shape, and its topography within the letter and other variables. The dependency of latency on the various factors varied considerably between alphabets. Some correlational analyses were done to evaluate the roles of the various factors.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Bouma, H. Visual recognition of isolated lower-case letters.Vision Research, 1971,11, 459–474.
Clark, H. B. The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1973,12, 335–359.
Huey, E. B.The psychology and pedagogy of reading. Cambridge, Mass: M.I.T. Press, 1968. (Originally published, 1908.)
Kolers, P. A. Clues to a letter’s recognition: Implications for the design of character.Journal of Typographic Research, 1969,3, 145–167.
Lupker, S. J. On the nature of perceptual information during letter perception.Perception & Psychophysics, 1979,25, 303–312.
Rumelhart, D. E., &Siple, P. Processes of recognizing tachistoscopically presented words.Psychological Review, 1974,81, 99–118.
Shimron, J., &Navon, D. The distribution of visual information in the vertical dimension of Roman and Hebrew letters.Visible Language, 1980,14, 5–12.
Tversky, A. Features of similarity.Psychological Review, 1977,84, 327–352.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This work was supported by grants from the Ford Foundation received through the Israel Foundations Trustees and from the Israel Commission of Basic Research. Preparation of the manuscript was done while the second author visited at the Center for the Study of Reading of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. This report represents equal and shared contributions of both authors.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shimron, J., Navon, D. The distribution of information within letters. Perception & Psychophysics 30, 483–491 (1981). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204845
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204845