This article applies to:
Experiment Author: Adapted from STEP and used with permission of Brian MacWhinney
This experiment investigates the phenomenon whereby letters in words are recognized more quickly and readily than letters in irrelevant contexts (in a non-pronounceable string of nonsense letters, for instance).
In this experiment four letters appear on screen for 300 milliseconds and are then masked. One letter appears above the mask and another below. One of the two new letters matches one of the four letters that previously appeared. If the top letter matches, press the "t" key, if the bottom letter matches, press the "b" key. There are 45 trials in this experiment.
Rumelhart, D.E., & McClelland, J.L. (1982). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 2. The contextual enhancement effect and some tests and extensions of the model. Psychological Review, 89, 60-94.
Cited Experiment Abstract
The interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception is reviewed, elaborated, and tested. According to the model context aids the perception of target letters as they are processed in the perceptual system. The implication that the duration and timing of the context in which a letter occurs should greatly influence the perceptibility of the target is confirmed by a series of experiments demonstrating that early or enhanced presentations of word and pronounceable-pseudoword contexts greatly increase the perceptibility of target letters. Also, according to the model, letters in strings that share several letters with words should be equally perceptible whether they are orthographically regular and pronounceable (SLET) or irregular (SLNT) and should be much more perceptible than letters in contexts that share few letters with any word (XLQJ). This prediction is tested and confirmed. The basic results of all the experiments are accounted for, with some modification of parameters, although there are some discrepancies in detail. Several recent findings that seem to challenge the model are considered and a number of extensions are proposed.
Works Cited by the Experiment
Aderman, D., & Smith, E.E. Expectancy as a determinant of functional units in perceptual recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 1971, 2, 117-129.
Anderson, J.A. Neural models with cognitive implications. In D. LaBerge & S.J. Samuels (Eds.), Basic processes in reading: Perception and comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1977.
Carr, T.H., Davidson, B.J., & Hawkins, H.L. Perceptual flexibility in word recognition: Strategies affect orthographic computation but not lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1978, 4, 674-690.
Cole, R.A. Listening for mispronunciations: A measure of what we hear during speech. Perception & Psychophysics, 1973, 13, 153-156.
Eriksen, C.W., & Rohrbaugh, J. Visual masking in multielement displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1970, 83, 147-154.
Estes, W.K. Memory, perception, and decision in letter identification. In R.L. Solso (Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola Symposium. Potomac, MD: Erlbaum, 1975.
Estes, W.K., Allmeyer, D.H., & Reder, S.M. Serial position functions of letter identification at brief and extended exposure durations. Perception & Psychophysics, 1976, 19, 1-15.
Foss, D.J., & Blank, M.A. Identifying the speech codes. Cognitive Psychology, 1980, 12, 1-31.
Glushko, R. The psychology of phonography: Reading aloud by orthographic activation and phonological synthesis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego, 1979.
Grossberg, S. How does the brain build a cognitive code? Psychological Review, 1980, 87, 1-51.
Hinton, G.E. Relaxation and its role in vision. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, 1977.
Johnston, J.C. A test of the sophisticated guessing theory of word perception. Cognitive Psychology, 1978, 10, 123-154.
Johnston, J.C., & McClelland, J.L. Experimental tests of a hierarchical model of word identification. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1980, 19, 503-524.
Kucera, H., & Francis, W. Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press, 1967.
Marslen-Wilson, W.D., & Welsh, A. Processing interactions and lexical access during word recognition in continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology, 1978, 10, 29-63.
Mason, M. Reading ability and letter search time: Effects of orthographic structure defined by single-letter positional frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1975, 104, 146-166.
Massaro, D.W., Venezky, R.L., & Taylor, G.A. Orthographic regularity, positional frequency, and visual processing of letter strings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1979, 108, 107-124.
McClelland, J.L. Preliminary letter identification in the perception of words and nonwords. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1976, 1, 80-91.
McClelland, J.L. On the time relations of mental processes: An examination of systems of processes in cascade. Psychological Review, 1979, 86, 287-330.
McClelland, J., & Johnson, J. The role of familiar units in perception of words and nonwords. Perception & Psychophysics, 1977, 22, 249-261.
McClelland, J.L., & Rumelhart, D.E. An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 1. An account of basic finding. Psychological Review, 1981, 88, 375-407.
Miller, G.A., Bruner, J.S., & Postman, L. Familiarity of letter sequences and tachistoscopic identification. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1954, 50, 129-139.
Morton, J. Interaction of information in word recognition. Psychological Review, 1969, 76, 165-178.
Reicher, G.M. Perceptual recognition as a function of meaningfulness of stimulus material. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969, 81, 274-280.
Rumelhart, D.E. Toward an interactive model of reading. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance VI. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1977.
Rumelhart, D.E., & Siple, P. The process of recognizing tachistoscopically presented words. Psychological Review, 1974, 81, 99-118.
Samuel, A.G. Speech is specialized, not special. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego, 1979.
Spoehr, K., & Smith, E. The role of orthographic and phonotactic rules in perceiving letter patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1975, 1, 21-34.
Studdert-Kennedy, M. Speech Perception. In N.J. Lass (Ed.), Contemporary issues in experimental phonetics. New York: Academic Press, 1976, 243-293.
Tulving, E., & Gold, C. Stimulus information and contextual information as determinants of tachistoscopic recognition of words. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1963, 66, 319-327.
Tulving, E., Mandler, G., & Baumal, R. Interaction of two sources of information in tachistoscopic word recognition. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1964, 18, 62-71.
Warren, R.M. Perceptual restoration of missing speech sounds. Science, 1970, 167, 393-395.
Warren, R.M. & Obusek, D.J. Speech perception and phonemic restorations. Perception & Psychophysics, 1971, 9, 358-362.