Abstract
Manipulations were introduced in three experiments to produce letter-by-letter analysis of orthographic (CVC) and nonorthographic (CCV or VCC) trigrams. Letters in the trigrams were presented in a different form (normal orientation and order, normal orientation but reversed order, reversed orientation but normal order, or reversed orientation and order) to each of four groups in the first experiment, and in each of the two normal orientation forms to different groups in the second experiment. Subjects both detected the presence or absence of a target letter and classified each trigram as a word or nonword. Additional changes were introduced in the third experiment to ensure that letters were being analyzed in the desired order. Performance was consistently better on orthographic trigrams, but only if the letters were oriented normally. This word-superiority effect (WSE) was related to feature testing that may be carried out letter by letter, with more efficient testing on words. Failiar orientation of letter features seems to be necessary; otherwise, testing becomes so difficult that there is no WSE. However, testing apparently is not finished on a given letter before it is begun on the next.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams, J. J. (1979). Models of word recognition.Cognitive Psychology,11, 133–176.
Bryden, M. P. (1970). Left-right differences in tachistoscopic recognition as a function of familiarity and pattern orientation.Journal o f Experimental Psychology,84, 120–122.
Carr, T. C., Lehmkuhle, S. W., Kottas, B., Astor-Stetson, E. C., &Arnold, D. (1976). Target position and practice in the identification of letters in varying context: A word superiority effect.Perception & Psychophysics,19, 412–416.
Chastain, O. (1981). Phonological and orthographic factors in the word-superiority effect.Memory & Cognition,9, 389–397.
Chastain, G. (1982). Scanning, holistic encoding, and the word-superiority effect.Memory & Cognition,10, 232–236.
Estes, W. K., Allmeyer, D. H., &Reder, S. (1976). Serial position functions for letter identification at brief and extended exposure durations.Perception & Psychophysics,19, 1–15.
Googh, P. B., &Cosky, M. J. (1977). One second of reading again. In N. J. Castellan, Jr., D. B. Pisoni, & G. R. Potts (Eds.),Cognitive theory (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum.
Greenberg, S. N., &Krueger, L. E. (1980). Limitations on the word-superiority effect with a f’vted target set.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,5, 25–28.
Gummerman, K. (1972). A response-contingent measure of proportion correct.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,52, 1645–1647.
Johnston, J. C. (1981). Effects of advance precuing of alternatives on the perception of letters alone and in words.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,7, 560–572.
Johnson, J. C., &McClelland, J. L. (1973). Visual factors in word perception.Perception & Psychophysics,14, 365–370.
Johnston, J. &McClelland, J. L. (1974). Perception of letters in words: Seek not and ye shall find.Science,184, 1192–1194.
Krueger, L. E. (1971). Effect of direction of sequential presentation and redundancy on short-term recognition memory.Perception & Psychophysics,9, 121–124.
Lawry, J. A., &LaBerge, D. (1981). Letter and word code interactions elicited by normally displayed words.Perception & Psychophysics,30, 71–82.
McClelland, J. (1976). Preliminary letter identification in the perception of words and nonwords.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,2, 80–91.
McClelland, J. L., &Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part I. An account of basic findings.Psychological Review,88, 375–407.
Paap, K. R., &Newsome, S. L. (1980a). Do small visual angles produce a word superiority effect or differential lateral masking?Memory & Cognition,8, 1–14.
Paap, K. R., &Newsome, S. L. (1980b). A perceptual-confusion account of the WSE in the target search paradigm.Perception & Psychophysics,27, 444–456.
Purcell, D. G., &Stanovich, K. E. (1982). Some boundary conditions for a word superiority effect.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology,34, 117–134.
Purcell, D. G., STanovich, K. E., &Spector, A. (1978). Visual angle and the word superiority effect.Memory & Cognition,6, 3–8.
Rumelhart, D. E., &Siple, P. (1974). Process of recognizing tachistoscopically presented words.Psychological Review,81, 99–118.
Smith, F. (1971).Understanding reading. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Spector, A., &Purcell, D. G. (1977). The word-superiority effect: A comparison between restricted and unrestricted alternative sets.Perception & Psychophysics,21, 323–328.
Sperling, G. (1967). Successive approximation to a model for short-term memory.Acta Psychologica,17, 285–292.
Terry, P., Samuels, S. J., &LaBerge, D. (1976). The effects of letter degradation and letter spacing on word recognition.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,15, 577–585.
Travers, J. R. (1975). Forced serial processing of words and letter strings: A reexamination.Perception & Psychophysics,18, 447–452.
Turvey, M. T. (1973). On peripheral and central processes in vision: Inferences from an information-processing analysis of masking with patterned stimuli.Psychological Review,80, 1–52.
Well, A. D., Pollatsek, A., &Schindler, R. M. (1975). Facilitation of both “same” and “different” judgments of letter strings by familiarity of letter sequence.Perception & Psychophysics,17, 511–520.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chastain, G. Directional letter-by-letter analysis and the word-superiority effect. Memory & Cognition 12, 195–201 (1984). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198434
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198434