Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Letter Visibility and the Optimal Viewing Position Effect of Isolated Connected and Un-Connected Letters in Arabic Cover

Letter Visibility and the Optimal Viewing Position Effect of Isolated Connected and Un-Connected Letters in Arabic

Psychology of Language and Communication
Volume 19 (2015): Issue 3 (December 2015)
By:   
Open Access
|May 2016
References

References

  1. Abdelhadi, S., Ibrahim, R., & Eviatar, Z. (2011). Perceptual load in the reading of Arabic: Effects of orthographic visual complexity on detection.,(2), 117–127.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  2. Abd El-Minem, F.M. (1987).: Al-Taufik Press [in Arabic].
    Search in Google Scholar
  3. Abu-Rabia, S. (2001). The role of vowels in reading Semitic scripts: Data from Arabic and Hebrew.,(1-2), 39–59.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  4. Adelman, J.S., Marquis, S.J., & Sabatos-DeVito, M.G. (2010). Letters in words are read simultaneously, not in left-to-right sequence.,(12), 1799–1801.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  5. Almabruk, A.A.A., Paterson, K.B., McGowan, V.A., & Jordan, T.R. (2011). Evaluating effects of divided hemispheric processing on word recognition in foveal and extrafoveal displays: The evidence from Arabic.,(4): e18131.
    Search in Google Scholar
  6. Al-Muhtaseb, H., Mahmoud, S., & Qahwaji, R. (2009). A novel minimal script for Arabic text recognition databases and benchmarks.,(3), 145–153.
    Search in Google Scholar
  7. Arguin, M. & Bub, D. (1995). Priming and response selection processes in letter classification and identification tasks.,(5), 1199–1219.
    Search in Google Scholar
  8. Averbach, E. & Coriell, A.S. (1961). Short-term memory in vision.,(1), 309–328.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  9. Belaid, A. & Choisy C. (2008). Human Reading Based Strategies for Off-Line Arabic Word Recognition.,, 36–56.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  10. Bouma, H. (1973). Visual interference in the parafoveal recognition of initial and final letters of words.,(4), 767–782.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  11. Brysbaert, M. (1994). Interhemispheric transfer and the processing of foveally presented stimuli.,(1-2), 151–161.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  12. Brysbaert, M. (2004). The importance of interhemispheric transfer for foveal vision: A factor that has been overlooked in theories of visual word recognition and object perception.,(3), 259–267.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  13. Brysbaert, M. & Nazir, T.A. (2005). Visual constraints in written word recognition: Evidence from the optimal viewing-position effect.,(3), 216–228.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  14. Brysbaert, M., Speybroeck, S., & Vanderelst, D. (2009) Is there room for the BBC in the mental lexicon? On the recognition of acronyms.,(9), 1832–1842.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  15. Brysbaert, M., Vitu, F., & Schroyens, W. (1996). The right visual field advantage and the optimal viewing position effect: On the relation between foveal and parafoveal word recognition.,(3), 385–395.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  16. Butler, B.E. (1975). Selective attention and target search with brief visual displays.,(3), 467–477.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  17. Butler, B.E. & Merikle, P.M. (1973). Selective masking and processing strategy.,(4), 542–548.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  18. Carrasco, M., Kinchla, R.A., & Figueroa, J.G. (1988). Visual letter-matching and the time course of visual and acoustic codes.,(1), 1–17.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  19. Carreiras, M., Perea, M., & Abu Mallouh, R. (2012). Priming of abstract letter representations may be universal: The case of Arabic.,(4), 685–690.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  20. Carreiras, M., Perea, M., Gil-López, C., Mallouh, R.A., & Salillas, E. (2013). Neural correlates of visual versus abstract letter processing in Roman and Arabic scripts.,(11), 1975–1985.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  21. Chung, S.T.L., Legge, G.E., & Cheung, S.H. (2004). Letter-recognition and reading speed in peripheral vision benefit from perceptual learning. V,(7), 695–709.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  22. Davis, C.J. (2006). Orthographic input coding: A review of behavioural data and current models. In S. Andrews (Ed.),(pp. 180–206). Hove: Psychology Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  23. Deutsch, A. & Rayner, K. (1999). Initial fixation location effects in reading Hebrew words.,(4), 393–421.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  24. Ducrot, S. & Pynte, J. (2002). What determines the eyes’ landing position in words?,(7), 1130–1144.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  25. Dufor, O. & Rapp, B. (2013). Letter representations in writing: an fMRI adaptation approach.,(781), 1-14.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  26. Ellis, A.W. & Brysbaert, M. (2010). Split fovea theory and the role of the two cerebral hemispheres in reading: A review of the evidence.,(2), 353–365.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  27. Estes, W.K., Allmeyer, D.H., & Reder, S.M. (1976). Serial position functions for letter identification at brief and extended exposure durations.,(1), 1–15.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  28. Falkenberg, H.K., Rubin, G.S., & Bex, P.J. (2007) Acuity, crowding, reading and fixation stability.,(1), 126–135.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  29. Farid, M. & Grainger, J. (1996). How initial fixation position influences visual word recognition: A comparison of French and Arabic.,(3), 351–368.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  30. Finkbeiner, M. & Coltheart, M. (2009). Letter recognition: from perception to representation.,(1), 1–6.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  31. Forster, K.I. (1998). The pros and cons of masked priming.,(2), 203–233.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  32. Geyer, L.H. & DeWald, C.G. (1973). Feature lists and confusion matrices.,(3), 471–482.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  33. Gibson, E.J. (1969).. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
    Search in Google Scholar
  34. Grainger, J. (2008). Cracking the orthographic code: An introduction.,(1), 1–35.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  35. Grainger, J., Granier, J.P., Farioli, F., Van Assche, E., & van Heuven, W.J. (2006). Letter position information and printed word perception: The relative-position priming constraint.,(4), 865–884.
    Search in Google Scholar
  36. Grainger, J. & Jacobs, A.M. (1996). Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple read-out model.,(3), 518–565.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  37. Grainger, J., Rey, A., & Dufau, S. (2008). Letter perception: from pixels to pandemonium.,(10), 381–387.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  38. Grainger, J. & van Heuven, W. (2003). Modeling letter position coding in printed word perception. In P. Bonin (Ed.),(pp. 1–24). New York: Nova Science.
    Search in Google Scholar
  39. Haber, R. N., & Standing, L. (1969). Location of errors with a poststimulus indicator.,(6), 345–346.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  40. Hunter, Z.R., Brysbaert, M., & Knecht, S. (2007). Foveal word reading requires interhemispheric communication.,(8), 1373–1387.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  41. Ibrahim, R. & Eviatar, Z. (2009). Language status and hemispheric involvement in reading: Evidence from trilingual Arabic speakers tested in Arabic, Hebrew, and English.,(2), 240–254.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  42. Jacobs, A.M., Nazir, T.A., & Heller, O. (1989). Perception of lowercase letters in peripheral vision: A letter discrimination matrix based on saccade latencies.,(1), 95–102.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  43. Jordan, T.R. & Paterson, K.B. (2009). Re-evaluating split-fovea processing in word recognition: A critical assessment of recent research.,(12), 2341–2353.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  44. Kajii, N. & Osaka, N. (2000). Optimal viewing position in vertically and horizontally presented Japanese words.,(6), 1634–1644.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  45. Keren, G. & Baggen, S. (1981). Recognition models of alphanumeric characters.(3), 234–246.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  46. Kinoshita, S. & Kaplan, L. (2008). Priming of abstract letter identities in the letter match task.,(12), 1873–1885.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  47. Kinoshita, S. & Norris, D. (2009). Transposed-letter priming of pre-lexical orthographic representations.,(1), 1–18.
    Search in Google Scholar
  48. Lavidor, M., Ellis, A., Shillcock, R., & Bland, T. (2001). Evaluating a split processing model of visual word recognition: Effects of word length.,(2), 265–272.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  49. Lavidor, M., & Walsh, V. (2004). Opinion – The nature of foveal representation.,(9), 729–735.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  50. Legge, G.E., Mansfield, J.S., & Chung, S.T.L. (2001). Psychophysics of reading: XX. Linking letter recognition to reading speed in central and peripheral vision.,(6), 725–743.
    Search in Google Scholar
  51. Legein, C.H. & Bouma, H. (1977). Dyslectic and normally-reading children. I. Exploration of a letter-search test for screening purposes. II. Follow-up and further exploration in 4 weak and 4 normal readers on letter, word and number recognition.,(2), 391–396.
    Search in Google Scholar
  52. Lindell, A.K. & Nicholls, M.E.R. (2003). Cortical representation of the fovea: Implications for visual half-field research.,(1), 111–117.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  53. Liu, P. & Li, X. (2013). Optimal viewing position effects in the processing of isolated Chinese words.,, 45–57
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  54. Mahdi, M. (2010). A study of Arabic letter frequency analysis.. Accessed 4 June 2015.
    Search in Google Scholar
  55. Martin, C.D., Thierry, G., Démonet, J.F., Roberts, M., & Nazir, T. (2007). ERP evidence for the split fovea theory.,, 212–220.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  56. Marzouki, Y., Meeter, M., & Grainger, J. (2013). Location invariance in masked repetition priming of letters and words.,(1), 23–29.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  57. McClelland, J.L. & Rumelhart, D.E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effect in letter perception. Part I: An account of basic findings.,(5), 375–407.
    Search in Google Scholar
  58. Merikle, P.M., Coltheart, M., & Lowe, D.G. (1971). On the selective effects of a patterned masking stimulus.,(3), 264–279.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  59. Merikle, P.M., Lowe, D.G., & Coltheart, M. (1971). Familiarity and method of report as determinants of tachistoscopic performance.,(2), 167–174.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  60. Mewhort, D.J.K. & Campbell, A.J. (1978). Processing spatial information and the selective-masking effect.,(1), 93–101.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  61. Miller, P. & Vaknin, V. (2012). The involvement of letter names in the silent processing of isolated letters: A developmental Perspective.,(8), 1276–1288.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  62. Miozzo, M. & Caramazza, A. (1998). The varieties of pure alexia: The case of failure to access graphemic representations.,(1-2), 203–238.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  63. Mycroft, R., Hanley, J.R., & Kay, J. (2002). Preserved access to abstract letter identities despite abolished letter naming in a case of pure alexia.,(2), 99–108.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  64. Nazir, T.A. (1991). On the role of refixations in letter strings: The influence of oculomotor factors.,(4), 373–389.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  65. Nazir, T.A., Ben-Boutayab, N., Decoppet, N., Deutsch, A., & Frost, R. (2004). Reading habits, perceptual learning, and recognition of printed words.,(3), 294–311.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  66. Nazir, T.A., Deutsch, A., Grainger, J., & Frost, R. (2000). The role of early perceptual learning in reading.,, 83.
    Search in Google Scholar
  67. Nazir, T.A., Heller, D., & Sussmann, C. (1992). Letter visibility and word recognition: The optimal viewing position in printed words.,(3), 315–328.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  68. Nazir, T.A., Jacobs, A.M., & O’Regan, J.K. (1998). Letter legibility and visual word recognition.,(4), 810–821.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  69. Paterson, K.B., Jordan, T.R., & Kurtev, S. (2009). Binocular Fixation Disparity in Single Word Displays.,(6), 1961–1968.
    Search in Google Scholar
  70. Pelli, D.G., Burns, C.W., Farrell, B., & Moore-Page, D.C. (2006). Feature detection and letter identification.,(28), 4646–4674.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  71. Perfetti, C.A., Cao, F., & Booth, J.R. (2013). Specialization and universals in the development of reading skill: How Chinese research informs a universal science of reading.,(1), 5–21.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  72. Petit, J.-P. & Grainger, J. (2002). Masked partial priming of letter perception.,(3), 337–353.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  73. Petit, J.-P., Midgley, K.J., Holcomb, P.J., & Grainger, J. (2006). On the time course of letter perception: A masked priming ERP investigation.,(4), 674–681.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  74. Pitchford, N.J., Ledgeway, T., & Masterson, J. (2008). Effect of orthographic processes on letter position encoding.(1), 97–116.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  75. Posner, M.I. & Mitchell, R.F. (1967). Chronometric analysis of classification.,(5), 392–409.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  76. Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search.,(8), 1457–1506.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  77. Rayner, K., McConkie, G.W., & Zola, D. (1980). Integrating information across eye movements.,(2), 206–226.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  78. Reilhac, C., Jucla, M., Iannuzzi, S., Valdois, S., & Démonet, J.-F. (2012). Effect of orthographic processes on letter identity and letter-position encoding in dyslexic children.,(154), 1–11.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  79. Shillcock, R., Ellison, T.M., & Monaghan, P. (2000). Eye-fixation behavior, lexical storage, and visual word recognition in a split processing model.,(4), 824–851.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  80. Schoonbaert, S. & Grainger, J. (2004). Letter position coding in printed word perception: Effects of repeated and transposed letters.,(3), 333–367.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  81. Schwantes, F.M. (1978). Stimulus position functions in tachistoscopic identification tasks: Scanning, rehearsal, and order of report.,(3), 219–226.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  82. Selfridge, O.G. & Neisser, U. (1960). Pattern recognition by machine., 60–68.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  83. Selfridge, O.G. (1959). Pandemonium: A paradigm for learning. In D.V. Blake & A.M. Uttley (Eds.),(pp. 511–529). London: H. M. Stationary Office.
    Search in Google Scholar
  84. Solomon, J.A. & Pelli, D.G. (1994). The visual filter mediating letter identification.,(6479), 395–397.
    Search in Google Scholar
  85. Stevens, M. & Grainger, J. (2003). Letter visibility and the viewing position effect in visual word recognition.,(1), 133–151.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  86. Taouk, M. & Coltheart, M. (2004). The cognitive processes involved in learning to read in Arabic.,(1-2), 27–57.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  87. Tydgat, I. & Grainger, J. (2009). Serial position effects in the identification of letters, digits, and symbols.,(2), 480–498.
    Search in Google Scholar
  88. Van der Haegen, L. & Brysbaert, M. (2011). The mechanisms underlying the interhemispheric integration of information in foveal word recognition: Evidence for transcortical inhibition.,(3), 81–89.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  89. Van der Haegen, L., Drieghe, D., & Brysbaert, M. (2010). The split fovea theory and the leicester critique: What do the data say?,(1), 96–106.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  90. Vitu, F., Lancelin, D., & d’Unienville, V.M. (2007). A perceptual-economy account for the inverted-optimal viewing position effect.,(5), 1220–1249.
    Search in Google Scholar
  91. Whitney, C. (2001). How the brain encodes the order of letters in a printed word: The SERIOL model and selective literature review.,(2), 221–243.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  92. Wolford, G. & Hollingsworth, S. (1974). Retinal location and string position as important variables in visual information processing.,(3), 437–442.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  93. Wong, Y.K. & Hsiao, J.H. (2012). Reading direction is sufficient to account for the optimal viewing position in reading: The case of music reading. Paper presented at The 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci2012), Sapporo, Japan.
    Search in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/plc-2015-0011 | Journal eISSN: 2083-8506 (formerly 1234-2238) | Journal ISSN: 1234-2238
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 174 - 200
Published on: May 12, 2016
Published by: Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Keywords:
Arabic,
optimal viewing position,
visual recognition,
connected,
un-connected,
isolated,
letter
Related subjects:
Social sciences,
Psychology,
Applied psychology

© 2016 Deia Ganayim, published by Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Volume 19 (2015): Issue 3 (December 2015)
Next article