Mirror generalization is detrimental for identifying letters with lateral mirror-image counterparts (‘b/d’). In the present study, we investigated whether the discrimination of this type of letters in expert readers might be rooted in the ability to inhibit the mirror-generalization process. In our negative priming paradigm, participants judged whether two letters were identical on the prime and two animals (or buildings) were identical on the probe. In Experiment 1, participants required more time when determining that two animals (but not two buildings) were mirror images of each other when preceded by letters with mirror-image counterparts than without mirror-image counterparts (‘a/h’). In Experiment 2, we replicated the results with different letters without mirror-image counterparts and with the type of probe stimuli (animal or building) manipulated as a within-subject factors. Our results suggest that expert readers never completely “unlearn” the mirror-generalization process and still need to inhibit this heuristic to overcome mirror errors.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Baylis, G. C., & Driver, J. (2001). Shape-coding in IT cells generalizes over contrast and mirror reversal, but not figure-ground reversal. Nature Neuroscience, 4, 937–942.
Bolger, D. J., Perfetti, C. A., & Schneider, W. (2005). Cross-cultural effect on the brain revisited: Universal structures plus writing system variation. Human Brain Mapping, 25, 92–104.
Bornstein, M., Gross, C., & Wolf, J. (1978). Perceptual similarity of mirror images in infancy. Cognition, 6, 89–116.
Borst, G., Moutier, S., & Houdé, O. (2013). Negative priming in logicomathematical reasoning: The cost of blocking your intuition. In W. De Neys & M. Osman (Eds.), New approaches in reasoning research—Current issues in thinking & reasoning (pp. 54–71). New York: Psychology Press.
Dehaene, S. (2013). Inside the Letterbox: How Literacy Transforms the Human Brain. Cerebrum, (June), 1–16.
Dehaene, S., & Cohen, L. (2007). Cultural recycling of cortical maps. Neuron, 56, 384–398.
Dehaene, S., Nakamura, K., Jobert, A., Kuroki, C., Ogawa, S., & Cohen, L. (2010). Why do children make mirror errors in reading? Neural correlates of mirror invariance in the visual word form area. NeuroImage, 49, 1837–1848.
Diamond, A., Barnett, W. S., Thomas, J., & Munro, S. (2007). Preschool program improves cognitive control. Science, 318, 1387–1388.
Diamond, A., & Kirkham, N. (2005). Not quite as grown-up as we like to think parallels between cognition in childhood and adulthood. Psychological Science, 16, 291–297.
Dilks, D. D., Julian, J. B., Kubilius, J., Spelke, E. S., & Kanwisher, N. (2011). Mirror-image sensitivity and invariance in object and scene processing pathways. The Journal of Neuroscience, 31, 11305–11312.
Duñabeitia, J. A., Dimitropoulou, M., Estévez, A., & Carreiras, M. (2013). The influence of reading expertise in mirror-letter perception: Evidence from beginning and expert readers. Mind, Brain, and Education, 7, 124–135.
Hasson, U., Harel, M., Levy, I., & Malach, R. (2003). Large-scale mirror-symmetry organization of human occipito-temporal object areas. Neuron, 37, 1027–1041.
Kolinsky, R., Verhaeghe, A., Fernandes, T., Mengarda, E. J., Grimm-Cabral, L., & Morais, J. (2011). Enantiomorphy through the looking glass: Literacy effects on mirror-image discrimination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 210–238.
Lachmann, T. (2002). Reading disability as a deficit in functional coordination. In Basic functions of language, reading and reading disability (pp. 165–198). Springer US.
Lachmann, T., & van Leeuwen, C. (2007). Paradoxical enhancement of letter recognition in developmental dyslexia. Developmental Neuropsychology, 31, 61–77.
Larsson, A., & Smith, T. A. (2012). fMRI repetition suppression: Neuronal adaptation or stimulus expectation? Cerebral Cortex, 22, 567–576.
Neill, W. T., Valdes, L. A., & Terry, K. M. (1995). Selective attention and inhibitory control of cognition. In F. N. Dempster & C. J. Brainerd (Eds.), Interference and inhibition in cognition (pp. 207–261). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Orton, S. T. (1925). “Word-blindness” in school children. Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, 14, 581.
Pegado, F., Nakamura, K., Cohen, L., & Dehaene, S. (2011). Breaking the symmetry: Mirror discrimination for single letters but not for pictures in the visual word form area. NeuroImage, 55, 742–749.
Perea, M., Moret-Tatay, C., & Pandero, V. (2011). Suppression of mirror generalization for reversible letters: Evidence from masked priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 237–246.
Rollenhagen, J. E., & Olson, C. R. (2000). Mirror-image confusion in single neurons of the macaque inferotemporal cortex. Science, 287, 1506–1508.
Schott, G. D. (2007). Mirror writing: Neurological reflections on an unusual phenomenon. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 78, 5–13.
Tipper, S. P. (1985). The negative priming effect: Inhibitory priming by ignored objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37A, 571–590.
About this article
Cite this article
Borst, G., Ahr, E., Roell, M. et al. The cost of blocking the mirror generalization process in reading: evidence for the role of inhibitory control in discriminating letters with lateral mirror-image counterparts. Psychon Bull Rev 22, 228–234 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0663-9
- Inhibitory control
- Mirror generalization
- Neural recycling