Search

A controversial issue in the literature on single word reading concerns whether semantic activation from a printed word can be stopped. Several reports have claimed that, even when attention is directed to a single letter in a word, semantic interference persists full blown in the context of variants of Stroop's paradigm. Incidental word recognition is thus claimed to be unaffected by directed spatial attention and hence to be automatic by this criterion. In contrast, the literature examining the relation between intentional visual word recognition and spatial attention in tasks like lexical decision and reading aloud suggests that spatial attention is a necessary preliminary to lexical/semantic processing of a word. These opposing conclusions raise the question of whether there is a qualitative difference between incidental and intentional visual word recognition when spatial attention is considered. We first consider the methodology from Stroop experiments in which putatively narrowed spatial attention manipulations failed to prevent interference from semantics. We then report a new experiment that better promotes focused spatial attention. The results yield clear evidence that the effect of semantic activation can indeed be sidelined because one or more prior processes were in large measure stopped. We conclude that incidental word recognition is not automatic in the sense of occurring without any kind of attention., Competing Interests: Declarations Conflict/Competing interests Not applicable. Ethics approval The experiment was approved by the Office of Research Ethics committee (REB #44728) at the University of Waterloo. Consent to participate/publish Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Participants were made aware during the consent process that their data will be published in an aggregate format (mean RTs and mean errors) in a journal. Participants were also were made aware that their anonymized data will be available on the Open Science Framework page associated with the study., (© 2024. The Psychonomic Society, Inc.)

Additive effects of Stimulus Quality and Word Frequency on RT in the context of lexical decision when the foils are orthographically legal were first reported more than 4 decades ago, and subsequently replicated numerous times. Two accounts are considered that make different a priori predictions when the foils are orthographically illegal . Yap and Balota's (2007) Familiarity Discrimination account predicts additive effects of these two factors on mean RT and across the RT distribution because it assumes a staged normalization process that deals with the effect of low Stimulus Quality; a subsequent process produces the effect of Word Frequency. In contrast, O'Malley and Besner's (2008) context-dependent thresholding/cascading account predicts an interaction because the use of illegal foils eliminates the need for thresholding at the letter level normally used to protect against lexical capture (identifying a nonword as a word) in experiments where Stimulus Quality is a factor, and hence the system reverts to processes in cascade. Critically, the present experiment yielded an interaction in which low-frequency words were more impaired by low Stimulus Quality than were high-frequency words. These data are inconsistent with the Familiarity Discrimination account as currently constituted, but consistent with a context-specific cascaded account. Further discussion considers how the Familiarity account may be modified so as to accommodate these data. Most generally, these data add to the view that processing is highly malleable (context dependent) rather than the received view, especially in regard to computational accounts, in which interactive-activation dynamics dominate. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

A widely held account asserts that single words are automatically identified in the absence of an intent to process them in the form of identifying a task set, and implementing it. We provide novel evidence that there is no fixed relation between intention and visual word identification. Subjects were randomly cued on a trial-by-trial basis as to whether to read aloud a single target word (Go) or not (No-go). When the Go-No Go probability was 50% (Experiment 1) the effect of stimulus quality (bright vs. dim targets) was the same size as in a separate block of 100% Go trials. In Experiment 2, where the Go-No Go probability was 80% in the cued condition, the stimulus quality effect was smaller than in the block of all Go trials. These results can be understood in terms of Go trial probability moderating whether subjects (i) hold off beginning to process the target until an intention in the form of a Task Set has been implemented, or (ii) begin to identify the target during the time taken to implement a Task Set. The additivity of stimulus quality and cueing conditions in Experiment 1 support the view that target processing only begins when a Task Set is in place, whereas the under-additivity of stimulus quality and cueing condition in Experiment 2 supports the interpretation that target identification can start during the time that a Task Set is being implemented. Taken together with other results, we conclude that there is no fixed relation between an intention and word identification; context is everything., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)