An examination of how the word recognition system is able to process handwritten words is fundamental to formulate a comprehensive model of visual word recognition. Previous research has revealed that the magnitude of lexical effects (e.g., the word-frequency effect) is greater with handwritten words than with printed words. In the present lexical decision experiments, we examined whether the quality of handwritten words moderates the recruitment of top-down feedback, as reflected in word-frequency effects. Results showed a reading cost for difficult-to-read and easy-to-read handwritten words relative to printed words. But the critical finding was that difficult-to-read handwritten words, but not easy-to-read handwritten words, showed a greater word-frequency effect than printed words. Therefore, the inherent physical variability of handwritten words does not necessarily boost the magnitude of lexical effects.
BalotaD., YapM. J., & CorteseM. J. (2006). Visual word recognition: The journey from features to meaning (A travel update). In TraxlerM. & GernsbacherM. A. (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 285–375). Amsterdam: Academic Press.
2.
BalotaD. A., AschenbrennerA. J., & YapM. J. (2013). Additive effects of word frequency and stimulus quality: The influence of trial history and data transformations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1563–1571. doi:10.1037/a0032186
3.
BarnhartA. S., & GoldingerS. D. (2010). Interpreting chicken-scratch: Lexical access for handwritten words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 906–923. doi:10.1037/a0019258
4.
BarnhartA. S., & GoldingerS. D. (2013). Rotation reveals the importance of configural cues in handwritten word perception. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 20, 1319–1326. doi:10.3758/s13423-013-0435-y
5.
BeckerC. A., & KillionT. H. (1977). Interaction of visual and cognitive effects in word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3, 389–401. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.3.3.389
6.
CarreirasM., ArmstrongB. C., PereaM., & FrostR. (2014). The what, when, where, and how of visual word recognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 90–98. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.11.005
7.
ColtheartM., DavelaarE., JonassonJ. F., & BesnerD. (1977). Access to the internal lexicon. In DornicS. (Ed.), Attention and performance VI (pp. 535–555). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8.
CorcoranD. W., & RouseR. O. (1970). An aspect of perceptual organization involved in reading typed and handwritten words. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 22, 526–530. doi:10.1080/14640747008401930
9.
DavisC. J. (2010). The spatial coding model of visual word identification. Psychological Review, 117, 713–758. doi:10.1037/a0019738
10.
DavisC. J., & PereaM. (2005). BuscaPalabras: A program for deriving orthographic and phonological neighborhood statistics and other psycholinguistic indices in Spanish. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 665–671. doi:10.3758/bf03192738
11.
ForsterK. I. (1998). The pros and cons of masked priming. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 203–233. doi:10.1023/A:1023202116609
12.
ForsterK. I., & ForsterJ. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 35, 116–124. doi:10.3758/BF03195503
13.
GauthierI., WongA. C., HaywardW. G., & CheungO. S. (2006). Font tuning associated with expertise in letter perception. Perception, 35, 541–559. doi:10.1068/p5313
14.
Gil-LópezC., PereaM., Moret-TatayC., & CarreirasM. (2011). Can masked priming effects be obtained with words?Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 73, 1643–1649. doi:10.3758/s13414-011-0174-y
15.
GomezP., & PereaM. (2014). Decomposing encoding and decisional components in visual-word recognition: A diffusion model analysis.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 2455–2466. doi:10.1080/17470218.2014.937447
16.
GomezP., PereaM., & RatcliffR. (2013). A diffusion model account of masked versus unmasked priming: Are they qualitatively different?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 1731–1740. doi:10.1037/a0032333
17.
HelligeJ. B., & AdamsonM. M. (2007). Hemispheric differences in processing handwritten cursive?Brain and Language, 102, 215–227. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2006.11.003
18.
KeuleersE., & BrysbaertM. (2010). Wuggy: A multilingual pseudoword generator. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 627–633. doi:10.3758/BRM.42.3.627
19.
Manso De ZunigaC., HumphreysG. W., & EvettL. J. (1991). Additive and interactive effects of repetition, degradation, and word frequency in the reading of handwriting. In BesnerD. and HumphreysG. W. (Eds.), Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition (pp. 10–33). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
20.
McClellandJ. L., & RumelhartD. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375–407. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.88.5.375
21.
PereaM., Abu MallouhR., & CarreirasM. (2014). Are root letters compulsory for lexical access in Semitic languages? The case of masked form-priming in Arabic. Cognition, 132, 491–500. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.05.008
22.
PereaM., CarreirasM., & GraingerJ. (2004). Blocking by word frequency and neighborhood density in visual word recognition: A task-specific response criteria account. Memory and Cognition, 32, 1090–1102. doi:10.3758/BF03196884
23.
PereaM., & GomezP. (2012). Increasing interletter spacing facilitates encoding of words. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 19, 332–338. doi:10.3758/s13423-011-0214-6
24.
PereaM., Vergara-MartínezM., & GomezP. (2015). Resolving the locus of cAsE aLtErNaTiOn effects in visual word recognition: Evidence from masked priming. Cognition, 142, 39–43. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2015.05.007
25.
PlautD. C., & BoothJ. R. (2006). More modeling but still no stages: Reply to Borowsky and Besner. Psychological Review, 113, 196–200. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.113.1.196
26.
PollatsekA., & WellA. D. (1995). On the use of counterbalanced designs in cognitive research: A suggestion for a better and more powerful analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 785–794. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.21.3.785
27.
QiaoE., VinckierF., SzwedM., NaccacheL., ValabrègueR., DehaeneS., & CohanL. (2010). Unconsciously deciphering handwriting: Subliminal invariance for handwritten words in the visual word form area. NeuroImage, 49, 1786–1799. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.09.034
28.
RatcliffR., GomezP., & McKoonG. (2004). A diffusion model account of the lexical decision task. Psychological Review, 111, 159–182. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.111.1.15
29.
RumelhartD. E., & SippleP. (1974). Process of recognizing tachistoscopically presented words. Psychological Review, 81, 99–118. doi:10.1037/h0036117
30.
SchomakerL., & SegersE. (1999). Finding features used in the human reading of cursive hand-writing. International Journal on Document Analysis and Recognition, 2, 13–18.
31.
StoneG. O., & Van OrdenG. C. (1994). Building a resonance framework for word recognition using design and system principles. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 1248–1268. doi:10.1037/0096–1523.20.6.1248
