Abstract
Functions relating four-alternative, forced-choice recognition of target letters to exposure duration were obtained in word (W), pronounceable-nonword (PN), and unpronounceable-nonword (UN) contexts. Advantages were found for letters in W over letters in PN contexts and for letters in both W and PN over letters in UN contexts, with uniformly large effects when displays were terminated by pattern masks but small or absent effects when there was no postmask. Analyses in terms of models that allow separate estimates of discriminability and bias effects showed that both contributed strongly to the advantage of W and PN over UN contexts with generally close parallelism of discriminability and bias measures over types of context, mask condition, and display duration. The findings are interpreted in terms of a two-stage conception of letter processing, with the effects of context localized in the competition among character representations for transition from the early parallel stage (visual buffer) to the later serial stage (working memory). The better recognition of letters in words and pronounceable nonwords is attributed to their advantage in competition for access to working memory, which is conferred by the encoding of familiar letter groups as units.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Adams, M.J. (1979). Models of word recognition.Cognitive Psychology,11, 133–176.
Baron, J. (1978). The word-superiority effect: Perceptual learning from reading. In W. K. Estes (Ed.),Handbook of learning and cognitive processes: Linguistic functions in cognitive theory (Vol. 5, pp. 131–166). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bishop, Y. M. M., Fienberg, S. E., &Holland, P. W. (1975).Discrete multivariate analysis: Theory and practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT fress.
Bjork, E. L., &Estes, W. K. (1973). Letter identification in relation to linguistic context and masking conditions.Memory & Cognition,1, 217–223.
Breitmeyer, B. G. (1984).Visual masking: An integrative approach. London: Oxford University Press.
Brier, S. S. (1982). Analysis of categorical data. In G. Keren (Ed.),Statistical and methodological issues in psychology and social sciences research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Coltheart, M. (1984). Sensory memory: A tutorial review. In H. Bouma and D. B. Bouwhuis (Eds.),Attention and performance X: Control of language processes (pp. 259–286). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Duncan, J. (1980). The locus of interference in the perception of simultaneous stimuli.Psychological Review,87, 272–300.
Estes, W. K. (1975). The locus of inferential and perceptual processes in letter identification.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,104, 122–145.
Estes, W. K. (1977). On the interaction of perception and memory in reading. In D. LaBerge & S. J. Samuels (Eds.),Basic processes in reading: Perception and comprehension (pp. 1–25). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Estes, W. K. (1978). Perceptual processing in letter recognition and reading. In E. C. Carterette & M. P. Friedman (Eds.),Handbook of perception: Vol. IX. Perceptual processing (pp. 163–220). New York: Academic Press.
Estes, W. K. (1982). Similarity-related channel interactions in visual processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,8, 353–382.
Estes, W. K., Bjork, E. L., &Skaar, E. (1974). Detection of single letters and letters in words with changing vs. unchanging mask characters.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,3, 201–203.
Green, D. M., &Swets, J. A. (1966).Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley.
Grizzle, J. E., Starmer, C. G., &Koch, G. G. (1969). Analysis of categorical data by linear models.Biometrics,25, 489–504.
Holender, D. (1979). Identification of letters in words and of single letters with pre- and postknowledge vs. postknowledge of the alternatives.Perception & Psychophysics,25, 313–318.
Johnston, J. C. (1978). A test of the sophisticated guessing theory of word perception.Cognitive Psychology,10, 123–153.
Johnston, J. C. (1981). Effects of advanced precuing of alternatives on the perception of letters alone and in words.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,7, 560–572.
Johnston, J. C., &McClelland, J. L. (1973). Visual factors in word perception.Perception & Psychophysics,14, 365–370.
Johnston, J. C., &McClelland, J. L. (1980). Experimental tests of a hierarchical model of word identification.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,19, 503–524.
Luce, R. D. (1963). Detection and recognition. In R D. Luce, R R. Bush, & E. Galanter (Eds.),Handbook of mathematical psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 103–190). New York: Wiley.
Massaro, D. W. (1973). Perception of letters, words, and nonwords.Journal of Experimental Psychology,100, 349–353
Massaro, D. W. (1979). Letter information and orthographic context in word perceptionJournal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,5, 595–609.
Mcclelland, J. L., &Johnston, J. C. (1977). The role of familiar units in perception of words and nonwords.Perception & Psychophysics,22, 249–261.
Mcclelland, J. L., &Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 1. An account of basic findings.Psychological Review,88, 375–407.
Mewhort, D. J. K., Marchetti, F. M., Gurnsey, R., &Campbell, A. J. (1984) Information persistence: A dual-buffer model for initial visual processing. In H. Bouma & D Bouwhuis (Eds.)Attention and performance X: Control of language processes (pp. 287–298). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Noreen.D. L. (1979).Analysis of some mathematical models for choice and decision. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Rockefeller University, New York.
Nosofsky, R. M. (1984). Choice, similarity, and the context theory of classification.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,10, 104–114.
Pachella, R. G., Smith, J. E. K., &Stanovich, K. E. (1978). Qualitative error analysis and speeded classification. In N. J. Castellan, Jr, & F. Restle (Eds.),Cognitive theory (Vol. 3, pp. 169–198). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Reicher, G. M. (1969). Perceptual recognition as a function of meaningfulness of stimulus material.Journal of Experimental Psychology,81, 275–280.
Rumelhart, D. E., &McClelland, J. L. (1982). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 2. The contextual enhancement effect and some tests and extensions of the model.Psychological Review,89, 60–94.
Salasoo, A., Shiffrin, R. M., &Feustel, T. C. (1985). Building permanent memory codes: Codification and repetition effects in word identification.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,114, 50–77.
Shepard, R. N. (1958). Stimulus and response generalization: Deduction of the generalization gradient from a trace model.Psychological Review,65, 242–256.
Smith, E. E., &Spoehr, K. T. (1974). The perception of printed English. A theoretical perspective. In B. H Kantowitz (Ed.),Human information processing: Tutorials in performance and cognition (pp. 231–275). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Thompson, M. A., &Massaro, D. W. (1973). Visual information and redundancy in reading.Journal of Experimental Psychology,98, 49–54.
Townsend, J. T. (1971). Theoretical analysis of an alphabetic confusion matrix.Perception & Psychophysics,9, 40–50.
Wheeler, D. D. (1970). Processes in word recognition.Cognitive Psychology,1, 59–85.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by Grants BNS 80-26656 and BNS 84-19021 from the National Science Foundation and by a fellowship from the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation to the first author.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Estes, W.K., Brunn, J.L. Discriminability and bias in the word-superiority effect. Perception & Psychophysics 42, 411–422 (1987). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209748
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209748