Lexical factors in the word-superiority effect

Assessing the role of different spatial frequencies in word perception by good and poor readers

Numerous studies indicate that dyslexic and nondyslexic individuals exhibit different patterns of sensitivity to spatial frequency. However, the extension of this effect to normal (nondyslexic) adults of good and poor reading abilities and the role played by different spatial frequencies in word perception have yet to be determined. In this study, using normal (nondyslexic) adults, we assessed reading ability, spatial frequency sensitivity, and perception of spatially filtered words and nonwords (using a two-alternative forced choice paradigm to avoid artifactual influences of nonperceptual guesswork). Good and poor readers showed different patterns of spatial frequency sensitivity. However, no differences in accuracy of word and nonword perception were found between good and poor readers, despite their differences in spatial frequency sensitivity. Indeed, both reading abilities showed the same superior perceptibility for spatially filtered words over nonwords across different spatial frequency bands. These findings indicate that spatial frequency sensitivity differences extend to normal (nondyslexic) adult readers and that a range of spatial frequencies can be used for word perception by good and poor readers. However, spatial frequency sensitivity may not accurately reveal an individual's ability to perceive words.

What do lateralized displays tell us about visual word perception? A cautionary indication from the word-letter effect

A common assumption underlying laterality research is that visual field asymmetries in lateralized word perception indicate the hemispheric specialisation of processes generally available for the perception of words, including words viewed in a more typical setting (i.e. in the central visual field). We tested the validity of this assumption using a phenomenon (the word-letter effect) frequently reported for displays viewed in the central visual field, where letters in words are perceived more accurately than the same letters in isolation. Words and isolated letters were presented in the left visual field (LVF), right visual field (RVF) and central visual field (CVF), the Reicher-Wheeler task was used to suppress influences of guesswork, and an eye-tracker ensured central fixation. In line with previous findings, lateralized displays revealed a RVF-LVF advantage for words (but not isolated letters) and CVF displays revealed an advantage for words over isolated letters (the word-letter effect). However, RVF and LVF displays both produced an advantage for isolated letters over words (a letter-word effect), indicating that processing subserving the advantage for words when participants viewed stimuli in the central visual field was unavailable for lateralized displays. Implications of these findings for studies of lateralized word perception are discussed.