The Science of Word Recognition.docx

1、The Science of Word RecognitionThe Science of Word RecognitionIntroductionEvidence from the last 20 years of work in cognitive psychology indicate that we use the letters within a word to recognize a word. Many typographers and other text enthusiasts Ive met insist that words are recognized by the o

2、utline made around the word shape. Some have used the term bouma as a synonym for word shape, though I was unfamiliar with the term. The term bouma appears in Paul Saengers 1997 book Space Between Words: The Origins of Silent Reading. There I learned to my chagrin that we recognize words from their

3、word shape and that “Modern psychologists call this image the Bouma shape.”This paper is written from the perspective of a reading psychologist. The data from dozens of experiments all come from peer reviewed journals where the experiments are well specified so that anyone could reproduce the experi

4、ment and expect to achieve the same result. This paper was originally presented as a talk at theATypIconference in Vancouver in September, 2003.The goal of this paper is to review the history of why psychologists moved from a word shape model of word recognition to a letter recognition model, and to

5、 help others to come to the same conclusion. This paper will cover many topics in relatively few pages. Along the way I will present experiments and models that I couldnt hope to cover completely without boring the reader. If you want more details on an experiment, all of the references are at the e

6、nd of the paper as well as suggested readings for those interested in more information on some topics. Most papers are widely available at academic libraries.I will start by describing three major categories of word recognition models: the word shape model, and serial and parallel models of letter r

7、ecognition. I will present representative data that was used as evidence to support each model. After all the evidence has been presented, I will evaluate the models in terms of their ability to support the data. And finally I will describe some recent developments in word recognition and a more det

8、ailed model that is currently popular among psychologists.Model #1: Word ShapeThe word recognition model that says words are recognized as complete units is the oldest model in the psychological literature, and is likely much older than the psychological literature. The general idea is that we see w

9、ords as a complete patterns rather than the sum of letter parts. Some claim that the information used to recognize a word is the pattern of ascending, descending, and neutral characters. Another formulation is to use the envelope created by the outline of the word. The word patterns are recognizable

10、 to us as an image because we have seen each of the patterns many times before. James Cattell (1886) was the first psychologist to propose this as a model of word recognition. Cattell is recognized as an influential founder of the field of psycholinguistics, which includes the scientific study of re

11、ading.Figure 1: Word shape recognition using the pattern of ascending, descending, and neutral characterscharactersFigure 2: Word shape recognition using the envelope around the wordCattell supported the word shape model because it provided the best explanation of the available experimental evidence

12、. Cattell had discovered a fascinating effect that today we call the Word Superiority Effect. He presented letter and word stimuli to subjects for a very brief period of time (5-10ms), and found that subjects were more accurate at recognizing the words than the letters. He concluded that subjects we

13、re more accurate at recognizing words in a short period of time because whole words are the units that we recognize.Cattells study was sloppy by modern standards, but the same effect was replicated in 1969 by Reicher. He presented strings of lettershalf the time real words, half the time notfor brie

14、f periods. The subjects were asked if one of two letters were contained in the string, for exampleDorK. Reicher found that subjects were more accurate at recognizingDwhen it was in the context ofWORDthan when in the context ofORWD. This supports the word shape model because the word allows the subje

15、ct to quickly recognize the familiar shape. Once the shape has been recognized, then the subject can deduce the presence of the correct letter long after the stimulus presentation.The second key piece of experimental data to support the word shape model is that lowercase text is read faster than upp

16、ercase text. Woodworth (1938) was the first to report this finding in his influential textbookExperimental Psychology. This finding has been confirmed more recently by Smith (1969) and Fisher (1975). Participants were asked to read comparable passages of text, half completely in uppercase text and h

17、alf presented in standard lowercase text. In each study, participants read reliably faster with the lowercase text by a 5-10% speed difference. This supports the word shape model because lowercase text enables unique patterns of ascending, descending, and neutral characters. When text is presented i

18、n all uppercase, all letters have the same text size and thus are more difficult and slower to read.The patterns of errors that are missed while proofreading text provide the third key piece of experimental evidence to support the word shape model. Subjects were asked to carefully read passages of t

19、ext for comprehension and at the same time mark any misspelling they found in the passage. The passage had been carefully designed to have an equal number of two kinds of misspellings: misspellings that are consistent with word shape, and misspellings that are inconsistent with word shape. A misspel

20、ling that is consistent with word shape is one that contains the same patterns of ascenders, descenders, and neutral characters, while a misspelling that is inconsistent with word shape changes the pattern of ascenders, descenders, and neutral characters. Iftestis the correctly spelled word,tesfwoul

21、d be an example of a misspelling consistent with word shape andtescwould be an example of a misspelling inconsistent with word shape. The word shape model would predict that consistent word shapes would be caught less often than an inconsistent word shape because words are more confusable if they ha

22、ve the same shape. Haber & Schindler (1981) and Monk & Hulme (1983) found that misspellings consistent with word shape were twice as likely to be missed as misspellings inconsistent with word shape.Target word:testError rateConsistent word shape(tesf)13%Inconsistent word shape(tesc)7%Figure 3: Missp

23、ellings that are consistent with word shape are missed more oftenThe fourth piece of evidence supporting the word shape model is that it is difficult to read text in alternating case. AlTeRnAtInG case is where the letters of a word change from uppercase to lowercase multiple times within a word. The

24、 word shape model predicts that this is difficult because it gives a pattern of ascending, descending, and neutral characters that is different than exists in a word in its natural all lowercase form. Alternating case has been shown to be more difficult than either lowercase or uppercase text in a v

25、ariety of studies. Smith (1969) showed that it slowed the reading speed of a passage of text, Mason (1978) showed that the time to name a word was slowed, Pollatsek, Well, & Schindler (1975) showed that same-difference matching was hindered, and Meyer & Gutschera (1975) showed that category decision

26、 times were decreased.Model #2: Serial Letter RecognitionThe shortest lived model of word recognition is that words are read letter-by-letter serially from left to right. Gough (1972) proposed this model because it was easy to understand, and far more testable than the word shape model of reading. I

27、n essence, recognizing a word in the mental lexicon was analogous to looking up a word in a dictionary. You start off by finding the first letter, than the second, and so on until you recognize the word.This model is consistent with Sperlings (1963) finding that letters can be recognized at a rate o

28、f 10-20ms per letter. Sperling showed participants strings of random letters for brief periods of time, asking if a particular letter was contained in the string. He found that if participants were given 10ms per letter, they could successfully complete the task. For example, if the target letter wa

29、s in the fourth position and the string was presented for 30ms, the participant couldnt complete the task successfully, but if string was presented for 40ms, they could complete the task successfully. Gough noted that a rate of 10ms per letter would be consistent with a typical reading rate of 300 w

30、pm.The serial letter recognition model is also able to successfully predict that shorter words are recognized faster than longer words. It is a very robust finding that word recognition takes more time with longer words. It takes more time to recognize a 5-letter word than a 4-letter word, and 6-let

31、ter words take more time to recognize than 5-letter words. The serial letter recognition model predicts that this should happen, while a word shape model does not make this prediction. In fact, the word shape model should expect longer words with more unique patterns to be easier to recognize than s

32、horter words.The serial letter recognition model fails because it cannot explain the Word Superiority Effect. The Word Superiority Effect showed that readers are better able to identify letters in the context of a word than in isolation, while the serial letter recognition model would expect that a letter in the third position in a word should take three times as long to recognize as a letter in isolation.Model #3: Parallel Letter RecognitionThe model that most psychologists currently accept as most accurate is the parallel lett