Abstract
We introduce a novel procedure for investigating factors that determine selective attention to letters in words. Participants were presented with words (in Experiments 1 and 3) and nonwords (in Experiment 2) that contained a buried word whose letters differed in color relative to the other letters present (e.g.,pig, in spring). The strings were presented in single case or mixed case, keeping the letters of the buried words in one case (SpRiNg). The time in which the whole stimulus was named was shorter for same-case than for mixed-case strings (forspring: spring < SpRiNg). In contrast, the time in which buried words were named was shorter in mixed- than in same-case strings (forpig: spring > SpRiNg). Across items, the effects of case mixing were negatively correlated across the two tasks. The positive effect of case mixing for buried words also occurred irrespective of whether the whole string was a word or a nonword, and there were contributions from similarity of both letter size and case. The results suggest that case mixing can facilitate selective attention to letters, which is otherwise disrupted by size- and case-based grouping across letter strings. The study provides evidence for letter grouping using size and case information.
Article PDF
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Besner, D., &Johnston, J. C. (1989). Reading and the mental lexicon: On the interaction of visual, orthographic, phonological and lexical information. In W. Marslen-Wilson (Ed.),Lexical representation and processes (pp. 291–316). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Besner, D., &McCann, R. (1987). Word frequency and pattern distortion in visual word identification and production: An examination of four classes of models. In M. Coltheart (Ed.),Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 201–219). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Carr, T.H., &Pollatsek, A. (1985). Recognizing printed words: A look at current models. In D. Besner, T. G. Waller, & G. E. MacKinnon (Eds.),Reading research: Advances in theory and in practice V (pp. 1–82). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Cattell, J.M. (1886). The time taken up by cerebral operations.Mind,11, 220–242, 377–392.
Coltheart, M., &Freeman, R. (1974). Case alternation impairs word identification.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,3, 102–104.
Duncan, J., &Humphreys, G. W. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity.Psychological Review,96, 433–458.
Frederiksen, J. R., &Kroll, J. F. (1976). Spelling and sound: Approaches to the internal lexicon.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,2, 361–379.
Hodsoll, J., &Humphreys, G. W. (2001). Driving attention with the top down: The relative contribution of target templates to the linear separability effect in the size dimension.Perception & Psychophysics,63, 918–926.
Kumada, T., &Humphreys, G. W. (2001). Lexical recovery from extinction: Interactions between visual form and stored knowledge modulate visual selection.Cognitive Neuropsychology,18, 465–478.
LaBerge, D. (1983). Spatial extent of attention to letters and words.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,9, 371–379.
MacLeod, C. M. (1992). The Stroop task: The gold standard of attentional measures.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,121, 12–14.
Mayall, K. [A.], &Humphreys, G. W. (1996). Case mixing and the task sensitive disruption of lexical processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 278–294.
Mayall, K. A., Humphreys, G. W., &Olson, A. (1997). Disruption to word or letter processing? The origins of case-mixing effects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,23, 1275–1286.
McCann, R. S., &Besner, D. (1987). Reading pseudohomophones: Implications for models of pronunciation assembly and the locus of word frequency effects in naming.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,13, 14–24.
McClelland, J. L., &Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: 1. An account of basic findings.Psychological Review,88, 375–407.
Patterson, K. E., &Coltheart, V. (1987). Phonological processes in reading: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.),Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 421–447). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Reicher, G. M. (1969). Perceptual recognition as a function of meaningfulness of stimulus material.Journal of Experimental Psychology,81, 274–280.
Rensink, R. A., &Enns, J. T. (1995). Preemption effects in visual search: Evidence for low-level grouping.Psychological Review,102, 101–130.
Smith, F. (1969). Familiarity of configuration vs discriminability of features in the visual identification of words.Psychonomic Science,14, 261–263.
Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders’ method. In W. G. Koster (Ed.),Attention and performance II. Amsterdam: North-Holland. [Acta psychologica,30, 276–315.]
Weekes, B. (1997). Differential effects of number of letters on word and nonword naming latency.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,50A, 439–456.
Wheeler, D. D. (1970). Processes in word recognition.Cognitive Psychology,1, 59–85.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This work was supported by grants from the BBSRC and the Wellcome Trust (U.K.)
Note—This article was accepted by the previous editorial team, while John T. Wixted was editor.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Humphreys, G.W., Mayall, K. & Cooper, A.C.G. The PIG in sPrInG: Evidence on letter grouping from the reading of buried words. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 10, 939–946 (2003). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196555
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196555