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: Deia Ganayim  
Open Access
|May 2016

References

  1. Abdelhadi, S., Ibrahim, R., & Eviatar, Z. (2011). Perceptual load in the reading of Arabic: Effects of orthographic visual complexity on detection. Writing Systems Research, 3 (2), 117–127.10.1093/wsr/wsr014
    Search in Google Scholar
  2. Abd El-Minem, F.M. (1987). Elm al-sarf. Jerusalem: 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. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 14 (1-2), 39–59.10.1023/A:1008147606320
    Search 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. Psychological Science, 21 (12), 1799–1801.10.1177/0956797610387442
    Search 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. PLoS ONE, 6 (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. International Journal of Circuits, Systems and Signal Processing, 3 (3), 145–153.
    Search in Google Scholar
  7. Arguin, M. & Bub, D. (1995). Priming and response selection processes in letter classification and identification tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21 (5), 1199–1219.
    Search in Google Scholar
  8. Averbach, E. & Coriell, A.S. (1961). Short-term memory in vision. Bell Labs Technical Journal, 40 (1), 309–328.10.1002/j.1538-7305.1961.tb03987.x
    Search in Google Scholar
  9. Belaid, A. & Choisy C. (2008). Human Reading Based Strategies for Off-Line Arabic Word Recognition. Arabic and Chinese Handwriting Recognition Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4768, 36–56.10.1007/978-3-540-78199-8_3
    Search in Google Scholar
  10. Bouma, H. (1973). Visual interference in the parafoveal recognition of initial and final letters of words. Vision Research, 13 (4), 767–782.10.1016/0042-6989(73)90041-2
    Search in Google Scholar
  11. Brysbaert, M. (1994). Interhemispheric transfer and the processing of foveally presented stimuli. Behavioral Brain Research, 64 (1-2), 151–161.10.1016/0166-4328(94)90127-9
    Search 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. Brain and Language, 88 (3), 259–267.10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00279-7
    Search in Google Scholar
  13. Brysbaert, M. & Nazir, T.A. (2005). Visual constraints in written word recognition: Evidence from the optimal viewing-position effect. Journal of Research in Reading, 28 (3), 216–228.10.1111/j.1467-9817.2005.00266.x
    Search 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. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62 (9), 1832–1842.10.1080/17470210802585471
    Search 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. Neuropsychology, 10 (3), 385–395.10.1037/0894-4105.10.3.385
    Search in Google Scholar
  16. Butler, B.E. (1975). Selective attention and target search with brief visual displays. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 27 (3), 467–477.10.1080/14640747508400507
    Search in Google Scholar
  17. Butler, B.E. & Merikle, P.M. (1973). Selective masking and processing strategy. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25 (4), 542–548.10.1080/14640747308400376
    Search 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. Acta Psychologica, 69 (1), 1–17.10.1016/0001-6918(88)90026-1
    Search in Google Scholar
  19. Carreiras, M., Perea, M., & Abu Mallouh, R. (2012). Priming of abstract letter representations may be universal: The case of Arabic. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 19 (4), 685–690.10.3758/s13423-012-0260-8
    Search 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. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25 (11), 1975–1985.10.1162/jocn_a_00438
    Search 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. Vision Research, 44 (7), 695–709.10.1016/j.visres.2003.09.028
    Search in Google Scholar
  22. Davis, C.J. (2006). Orthographic input coding: A review of behavioural data and current models. In S. Andrews (Ed.), From Inkmarks to Ideas: Current Issues in Lexical Processing (pp. 180–206). Hove: Psychology Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  23. Deutsch, A. & Rayner, K. (1999). Initial fixation location effects in reading Hebrew words. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14 (4), 393–421.10.1080/016909699386284
    Search in Google Scholar
  24. Ducrot, S. & Pynte, J. (2002). What determines the eyes’ landing position in words? Perception & Psychophysics, 64 (7), 1130–1144.10.3758/BF03194762
    Search in Google Scholar
  25. Dufor, O. & Rapp, B. (2013). Letter representations in writing: an fMRI adaptation approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 4 (781), 1-14.10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00781
    Search 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. Neuropsychologia, 48 (2), 353–365.10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.08.021
    Search 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. Perception & Psychophysics, 19 (1), 1–15.10.3758/BF03199379
    Search in Google Scholar
  28. Falkenberg, H.K., Rubin, G.S., & Bex, P.J. (2007) Acuity, crowding, reading and fixation stability. Vision Research, 47 (1), 126–135.10.1016/j.visres.2006.09.014
    Search in Google Scholar
  29. Farid, M. & Grainger, J. (1996). How initial fixation position influences visual word recognition: A comparison of French and Arabic. Brain and Language, 53 (3), 351–368.10.1006/brln.1996.0053
    Search in Google Scholar
  30. Finkbeiner, M. & Coltheart, M. (2009). Letter recognition: from perception to representation. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 26 (1), 1–6.10.1080/02643290902905294
    Search in Google Scholar
  31. Forster, K.I. (1998). The pros and cons of masked priming. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27 (2), 203–233.10.1023/A:1023202116609
    Search in Google Scholar
  32. Geyer, L.H. & DeWald, C.G. (1973). Feature lists and confusion matrices. Perception & Psychophysics, 14 (3), 471–482.10.3758/BF03211185
    Search in Google Scholar
  33. Gibson, E.J. (1969). Principles of Perceptual Learning and Development. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
    Search in Google Scholar
  34. Grainger, J. (2008). Cracking the orthographic code: An introduction. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23 (1), 1–35.10.1080/01690960701578013
    Search 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. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32 (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. Psychological Review, 103 (3), 518–565.10.1037/0033-295X.103.3.518
    Search in Google Scholar
  37. Grainger, J., Rey, A., & Dufau, S. (2008). Letter perception: from pixels to pandemonium. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12 (10), 381–387.10.1016/j.tics.2008.06.006
    Search in Google Scholar
  38. Grainger, J. & van Heuven, W. (2003). Modeling letter position coding in printed word perception. In P. Bonin (Ed.), The Mental Lexicon (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. Psychonomic Science, 17 (6), 345–346.10.3758/BF03335273
    Search in Google Scholar
  40. Hunter, Z.R., Brysbaert, M., & Knecht, S. (2007). Foveal word reading requires interhemispheric communication. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19 (8), 1373–1387.10.1162/jocn.2007.19.8.1373
    Search 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. Neuropsychology, 23 (2), 240–254.10.1037/a0014193
    Search 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. Perception & Psychophysics, 46 (1), 95–102.10.3758/BF03208079
    Search 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. Neuropsychologia, 47 (12), 2341–2353.10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.07.020
    Search in Google Scholar
  44. Kajii, N. & Osaka, N. (2000). Optimal viewing position in vertically and horizontally presented Japanese words. Perception & Psychophysics, 62 (6), 1634–1644.10.3758/BF03212161
    Search in Google Scholar
  45. Keren, G. & Baggen, S. (1981). Recognition models of alphanumeric characters. Perception & Psychophysics, 29 (3), 234–246.10.3758/BF03207290
    Search in Google Scholar
  46. Kinoshita, S. & Kaplan, L. (2008). Priming of abstract letter identities in the letter match task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61 (12), 1873–1885.10.1080/17470210701781114
    Search in Google Scholar
  47. Kinoshita, S. & Norris, D. (2009). Transposed-letter priming of pre-lexical orthographic representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 35 (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. Cognitive Brain Research, 12 (2), 265–272.10.1016/S0926-6410(01)00056-8
    Search in Google Scholar
  49. Lavidor, M., & Walsh, V. (2004). Opinion – The nature of foveal representation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5 (9), 729–735.10.1038/nrn1498
    Search 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. Vision Research, 41 (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. Documenta Ophthalmologica, 42 (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. Cortex, 39 (1), 111–117.10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70079-0
    Search in Google Scholar
  53. Liu, P. & Li, X. (2013). Optimal viewing position effects in the processing of isolated Chinese words. Vision Research, 81, 45–5710.1016/j.visres.2013.02.004
    Search in Google Scholar
  54. Mahdi, M. (2010). A study of Arabic letter frequency analysis. http://www.intellaren.com/articles/en/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. Brain Research, 1185, 212–220.10.1016/j.brainres.2007.09.049
    Search in Google Scholar
  56. Marzouki, Y., Meeter, M., & Grainger, J. (2013). Location invariance in masked repetition priming of letters and words. Acta Psychologica, 142 (1), 23–29.10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.10.006
    Search 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. Psychological review, 88 (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. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25 (3), 264–279.10.1037/h0082388
    Search in Google Scholar
  59. Merikle, P.M., Lowe, D.G., & Coltheart, M. (1971). Familiarity and method of report as determinants of tachistoscopic performance. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25 (2), 167–174.10.1037/h0082377
    Search in Google Scholar
  60. Mewhort, D.J.K. & Campbell, A.J. (1978). Processing spatial information and the selective-masking effect. Perception & Psychophysics, 24 (1), 93–101.10.3758/BF03202978
    Search in Google Scholar
  61. Miller, P. & Vaknin, V. (2012). The involvement of letter names in the silent processing of isolated letters: A developmental Perspective. Memory & Cognition, 40 (8), 1276–1288.10.3758/s13421-012-0223-3
    Search in Google Scholar
  62. Miozzo, M. & Caramazza, A. (1998). The varieties of pure alexia: The case of failure to access graphemic representations. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 15 (1-2), 203–238.10.1080/026432998381267
    Search 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. Journal of Neurolinguisitcs, 15 (2), 99–108.10.1016/S0911-6044(01)00003-3
    Search in Google Scholar
  64. Nazir, T.A. (1991). On the role of refixations in letter strings: The influence of oculomotor factors. Perception & Psychophysics, 49 (4), 373–389.10.3758/BF03205995
    Search 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. Brain and Language, 88 (3), 294–311.10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00168-8
    Search in Google Scholar
  66. Nazir, T.A., Deutsch, A., Grainger, J., & Frost, R. (2000). The role of early perceptual learning in reading. Abstracts of the Psychonomic Society, 5, 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. Perception & Psychophysics, 52 (3), 315–328.10.3758/BF03209148
    Search in Google Scholar
  68. Nazir, T.A., Jacobs, A.M., & O’Regan, J.K. (1998). Letter legibility and visual word recognition. Memory & Cognition, 26 (4), 810–821.10.3758/BF03211400
    Search in Google Scholar
  69. Paterson, K.B., Jordan, T.R., & Kurtev, S. (2009). Binocular Fixation Disparity in Single Word Displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35 (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. Vision Research, 46 (28), 4646–4674.10.1016/j.visres.2006.04.023
    Search 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. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17 (1), 5–21.10.1080/10888438.2012.689786
    Search in Google Scholar
  72. Petit, J.-P. & Grainger, J. (2002). Masked partial priming of letter perception. Visual Cognition, 9 (3), 337–353.10.1080/13506280042000207
    Search 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. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13 (4), 674–681.10.3758/BF03193980
    Search in Google Scholar
  74. Pitchford, N.J., Ledgeway, T., & Masterson, J. (2008). Effect of orthographic processes on letter position encoding. Journal of Research in Reading, 31 (1), 97–116.10.1111/j.1467-9817.2007.00363.x
    Search in Google Scholar
  75. Posner, M.I. & Mitchell, R.F. (1967). Chronometric analysis of classification. Psychological Review, 74 (5), 392–409.10.1037/h0024913
    Search in Google Scholar
  76. Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62 (8), 1457–1506.10.1080/17470210902816461
    Search in Google Scholar
  77. Rayner, K., McConkie, G.W., & Zola, D. (1980). Integrating information across eye movements. Cognitive Psychology, 12 (2), 206–226.10.1016/0010-0285(80)90009-2
    Search 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. Frontiers in Psychology, 3 (154), 1–11.10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00154
    Search 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. Psychological Review, 107 (4), 824–851.10.1037/0033-295X.107.4.824
    Search in Google Scholar
  80. Schoonbaert, S. & Grainger, J. (2004). Letter position coding in printed word perception: Effects of repeated and transposed letters. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19 (3), 333–367.10.1080/01690960344000198
    Search in Google Scholar
  81. Schwantes, F.M. (1978). Stimulus position functions in tachistoscopic identification tasks: Scanning, rehearsal, and order of report. Perception & Psychophysics, 23 (3), 219–226.10.3758/BF03204129
    Search in Google Scholar
  82. Selfridge, O.G. & Neisser, U. (1960). Pattern recognition by machine. Scientific American, 20, 60–68.10.1038/scientificamerican0860-60
    Search in Google Scholar
  83. Selfridge, O.G. (1959). Pandemonium: A paradigm for learning. In D.V. Blake & A.M. Uttley (Eds.), Proceedings of the Symposium on Mechanisation of Thought Processes (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. Nature, 369 (6479), 395–397.
    Search in Google Scholar
  85. Stevens, M. & Grainger, J. (2003). Letter visibility and the viewing position effect in visual word recognition. Perception & Psychophysics, 65 (1), 133–151.10.3758/BF03194790
    Search in Google Scholar
  86. Taouk, M. & Coltheart, M. (2004). The cognitive processes involved in learning to read in Arabic. Reading and Writing, 17 (1-2), 27–57.10.1023/B:READ.0000013831.91795.ec
    Search in Google Scholar
  87. Tydgat, I. & Grainger, J. (2009). Serial position effects in the identification of letters, digits, and symbols. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35 (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. Brain and Language, 118 (3), 81–89.10.1016/j.bandl.2010.03.006
    Search 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? Neuropsychologia, 48 (1), 96–106.10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.08.014
    Search in Google Scholar
  90. Vitu, F., Lancelin, D., & d’Unienville, V.M. (2007). A perceptual-economy account for the inverted-optimal viewing position effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33 (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. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8 (2), 221–243.10.3758/BF03196158
    Search in Google Scholar
  92. Wolford, G. & Hollingsworth, S. (1974). Retinal location and string position as important variables in visual information processing. Perception & Psychophysics, 16 (3), 437–442.10.3758/BF03198569
    Search 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 | 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
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
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