User:LAElling/My sandbox
In cognitive psychology, the word superiority effect (WSE) refers to the phenomenon that people are more accurate in recognizing a letter in the context of a word than they are when a letter is presented in isolation, or when a letter is presented within a nonword (e.g. "WXRG"). Studies have also found a WSE when letter identification within words is compared to letter identification within pseudowords[1] (e.g. "WOSK") and pseudohomophones[2] (e.g. "WERK").
The effect was first described by Cattell (1886),[3] and important contributions came from Reicher (1969)[4] and Wheeler (1970)[5]. The WSE has since been exhaustively studied in the context of cognitive processes involved during reading. Large amounts of research have also been done to try to model the effect using connectionist networks.
Experimental Task
[edit]The WSE has traditionally been tested using a tachistoscope, as the durations of the letter string presentations need to be carefully controlled. Recently, stimulus presentation software has allowed much simpler manipulation of presentation durations using computers. The WSE has also been described without a tachistoscope.[6]
A string of letters, usually four or five, is flashed for several milliseconds onto a screen. Readers are then asked to choose which of two letters had been in the flashed string. For example, if "WOSK" had been flashed, a reader might have to decide whether "K" or "H" had been in "WOSK". A WSE arises when subjects choose the correct letter more consistently when letter strings are real words rather than nonwords or single letters. For example, readers have been found to be more accurate in identifying a "K" in "WORK" than a "K" by itself, or a "K" in "WXRK".
Hypotheses
[edit]The existence of a WSE generally implies that there is some type of access or encoding advantage that words have in the mind that pseudowords or single letters do not have. Various studies have proposed that the distinction is a result of pronounceability differences (nonwords are not pronounceable and therefore are not as easily remembered), frequency (real words are more frequently encountered and used), meaningfulness (real words have semantic value and therefore are better retained in memory), orthographic regularity (real words follow familiar spelling conventions and are therefore better retained in memory), or neighborhood density (real words tend to share more letters with other words than nonwords and therefore have more activation in the mind).
Other studies have proposed that the WSE is heavily affected or even induced by experimental factors, such as the type of masking used after the presentation of the word,[7] or the duration of the masks.
The WSE and an Interactive-Activation Model
[edit]
The WSE has proven to be an important finding for word recognition models, and specifically is supported by Rumelhart and McClelland's interactive-activation model of word recognition. According to this model, when a reader is presented with a word, each letter in parallel will either stimulate or inhibit different feature detectors (e.g. a curved shape for "C", horizontal and vertical bars for "H", etc.). Those feature detectors will then stimulate or inhibit different letter detectors, which will finally stimulate or inhibit different word detectors. Each activated connection would carry a different weight, and thus the word "WORK" in the example would be activated more than any other word (and therefore recognized by a reader).
According to this interactive-activation model, the WSE is explained as such: When the target letter is presented within a word, the feature detectors, letter detectors and word detectors will all be activated, adding weight to the final recognition of the stimulus. However, when only the letter is presented, only the letter detector level will be activated. Therefore, we may remember the presented stimulus word more clearly, and thereby be more accurate in identifying its component letters, as observed in the WSE.
The Adverse Word Superiority Effect
[edit]One of the findings of the Johnston and McClelland report was that the WSE does not occur inevitably whenever we compare a word and a nonword. Rather, it depends somewhat upon the strategies that readers use during a task. If readers paid more attention to the letter in a particular position, they would experience the adverse word superiority effect. This is because the reader would no longer have the benefit of having the word detector level activated with as much weight if they neglected to focus on the full word.
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ McClelland, J. L. (1977). "The role of familiar units in perception of words and nonwords" (PDF). Perception & Psychophysics. 22 (3): 249–261. doi:10.3758/BF03199687. Retrieved 2008-06-30.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - ^ Ferraro, F. R. (1997). "An analysis of Reicher-task effects". Journal of General Psychology. 121 (4): 411–442. doi:10.1080/00221309709595569.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - ^ Cattell, J. M. (1886). "The time it takes to see and name objects". Mind.
- ^ Reicher, G. M. (1969). "Perceptual recognition as a function of meaningfulness of stimulus material". Journal of Experimental Psychology. 81 (2): 275–280. doi:10.1037/h0027768. PMID 5811803. Retrieved 2008-06-30.
- ^ Wheeler, D. D. (1970). "Processes in word recognition". Cognitive Psychology. 1 (1): 59–85. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(70)90005-8. hdl:2027.42/32833. Retrieved 2008-06-30.
- ^ Prinzmetal, W. (1992). "The word-superiority effect does not require a T-scope". Perception & Psychophysics. 51 (5): 473–484. doi:10.3758/BF03211643. PMID 1594437. Retrieved 2008-06-30.
- ^ Johnston, J. C. (1973). "Visual factors in word perception" (PDF). Perception & Psychophysics. 14 (2): 365–370. doi:10.3758/BF03212406. Retrieved 2008-06-30.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help)
Further reading
[edit]- Sternberg, Robert J. (2006). Cognitive Psychology; fourth edition.
- Crowder, Robert G. and Wagner, Richard K. (1992). The Psychology of Reading, second edition. p. 79.
- Harris, Margaret and Coltheart, Max. (1986) Language Processing in Children and Adults. p. 155.
- Francis, Greg, Neath, Ian, Mackewn, Angie, and Goldthwaite, Danalee. (2004). Belmont: Wadsworth, p. 73-74.
- Grainger, Jonathan, Sébastien Bouttevin, Cathy Truc, Mireille Bastien, and Johannes Ziegler. "Word superiority, pseudoword superiority, and learning to read: A comparison of dyslexic and normal readers." Brain and Language 66 (2003): 1105-1114. EBSCO. 27 January 2006.
- Jordan, T.R. & de Bruijn, O. (1993). Word superiority over isolated letters: The neglected role of flanking mask-contours. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 1-15.
- Jordan, T.R., Paterson, K.B., & Almabruk, A.A.A. (2010). Revealing the superior perceptibility of words in Arabic. Perception, 39, 426-428.
External links
[edit]- "The Science of Word Recognition" by Kevin Larson, 2004