Humans have expertise with visual words and faces. One marker of this expertise is the inversion effect. This is attributed to experience with those objects being biased towards a canonical orientation, rather than some inherent property of object structure or perceptual anisotropy. To confirm the role of experience, we measured inversion effects in word matching for familiar and unfamiliar languages. Second, we examined whether there may be more demands on reading expertise with handwritten stimuli rather than computer font, given the greater variability and irregularities in the former, with the prediction of larger inversion effects for handwriting. We recruited two cohorts of subjects, one fluent in Farsi and the other in Punjabi, neither of whom were able to read the other's language. Subjects performed a match-to-sample task with words in either computer fonts or handwritings. Subjects were more accurate and faster with their familiar language, even when it was inverted. Inversion effects were present for the familiar but not the unfamiliar language. The inversion effect in accuracy for handwriting was larger than that for computer fonts in the familiar language. We conclude that the word inversion effect is generated solely by orientation-biased experience, and that demands on this expertise are greater with handwriting than computer font.
AdakC.ChaudhuriB. B.BlumensteinM. (2019). An empirical study on writer identification and verification from intra-variable individual handwriting. IEEE Access, 7, 24738–24758. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2899908
2.
AlbonicoA.FurubackeA.BartonJ. J.OrucI. (2018). Perceptual efficiency and the inversion effect for faces, words and houses. Vision Research, 153, 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2018.10.008
3.
BarnhartA. S.GoldingerS. D. (2010). Interpreting chicken-scratch: Lexical access for handwritten words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(4), 906–923. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019258
4.
BarnhartA. S.GoldingerS. D. (2013). Rotation reveals the importance of configural cues in handwritten word perception. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(6), 1319–1326. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0435-y
5.
BartonJ.KeenanJ.BassT. (2001). Discrimination of spatial relations and features in faces: Effects of inversion and viewing duration. British Journal of Psychology, 92(3), 527–549. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712601162329
6.
BjörnströmL. E.HillsC.HanifH.BartonJ. J. (2014). Visual word expertise: A study of inversion and the word-length effect, with perceptual transforms. Perception, 43(5), 438–450. https://doi.org/10.1068/p7698
7.
CabezaR.BruceV.KatoT.OdaM. (1999). The prototype effect in face recognition: Extension and limits. Memory & Cognition, 27(1), 139–151. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201220
8.
ChungH. K. S.LeungJ. C. Y.WongV. M. Y.HsiaoJ. H. (2018). When is the right hemisphere holistic and when is it not? The case of Chinese character recognition. Cognition, 178, 50–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.04.022
9.
CorcoranD.RouseR. (1970). An aspect of perceptual organization involved in reading typed and handwritten words. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 22(3), 526–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640747008401930
10.
De ZunigaC. M.HumphreysG. W. (1991). Additive and interactive effects of repetition, degradation, and word frequency in the reading of handwriting. In BesnerD.HumphreysG. W. (Eds.), Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition (pp. 10–33). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
11.
DuchaineB.NakayamaK. (2006). The Cambridge Face Memory Test: Results for neurologically intact individuals and an investigation of its validity using inverted face stimuli and prosopagnosic participants. Neuropsychologia, 44(4), 576–585.
12.
FarahM.TanakaJ.DrainH. (1995). What causes the face inversion effect?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(3), 628–634. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.21.3.628
13.
FeizabadiM.AlbonicoA.StarrfeltR.BartonJ. J. S. (2021). Whole-object effects in visual word processing: Parallels with and differences from face recognition. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 38(3), 231–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2021.1974369
14.
GrossiG.MurphyJ.BogganJ. (2009). Word and pseudoword superiority effects in Italian-English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(1), 113–120.
15.
HaywardW. G.CrookesK.RhodesG. (2013). The other-race effect: Holistic coding differences and beyond. Visual Cognition, 21(9–10), 1224–1247. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2013.824530
16.
HelligeJ. B.AdamsonM. M. (2007). Hemispheric differences in processing handwritten cursive. Brain and Language, 102(3), 215–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2006.11.003
17.
HemströmJ.AlbonicoA.DjouabS.BartonJ. J. (2019). Visual search for complex objects: Set-size effects for faces, words and cars. Vision Research, 162, 8–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2019.06.007
18.
HsiaoJ. H.CottrellG. W. (2009). Not all visual expertise is holistic, but it may be leftist: The case of Chinese character recognition. Psychological Science, 20(4), 455–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02315.x
19.
IntriligatorJ.CavanaghP. (2001). The spatial resolution of visual attention. Cognitive Psychology, 43(3), 171–216. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0755
20.
KoriatA.NormanJ. (1985). Reading rotated words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11(4), 490–508. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.11.4.490
21.
LederH.BruceV. (2000). When inverted faces are recognized: The role of configural information in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A(2), 513–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/713755889
MartelliM.MajajN. J.PelliD. G. (2005). Are faces processed like words? A diagnostic test for recognition by parts. Journal of Vision, 5(1), 6–6. https://doi.org/10.1167/5.1.6
NavonD. (1978). Perception of misoriented words and letter strings. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 32(3), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0081681
26.
NavonD.RavehO. (2004). On the process of recognizing inverted words: Does it rely only on orientation-invariant cues?Memory and Cognition, 32(7), 1103–1117. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196885
PereaM.Gil-LópezC.BeléndezV.CarreirasM. (2016). Do handwritten words magnify lexical effects in visual word recognition?The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(8), 1631–1647. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1091016
29.
PichlerP.DosaniM.OrucI.BartonJ. J. (2012). The nature of upright and inverted face representations: An adaptation-transfer study of configuration. Cortex, 48(6), 725–736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2011.02.005
QiaoE.VinckierF.SzwedM.NaccacheL.ValabrègueR.DehaeneS.CohenL. (2010). Unconsciously deciphering handwriting: Subliminal invariance for handwritten words in the visual word form area. Neuroimage, 49(2), 1786–1799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.09.034
32.
RakoverS. S. (2013). Explaining the face-inversion effect: The face–scheme incompatibility (FSI) model. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(4), 665–692. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0388-1
RoschE.MervisC. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7(4), 573–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9
RossionB. (2009). Distinguishing the cause and consequence of face inversion: The perceptual field hypothesis. Acta Psychologica, 132(3), 300–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.08.002
37.
RumelhartD. E.McClellandJ. L. (1982). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: II. The contextual enhancement effect and some tests and extensions of the model. Psychological Review, 89(1), 60–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.89.1.60
38.
SearcyJ.BartlettJ. (1996). Inversion and processing of component and spatial-relational information in faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 22(4), 904–915. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.22.4.904
39.
SekulerA.GasparC.GoldJ.BennettP. (2004). Inversion leads to quantitative, not qualitative, changes in face processing. Current Biology, 14(5), 391–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2004.02.028
40.
TanakaJ. W.SimonyiD. (2016). The “parts and wholes” of face recognition: A review of the literature. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(10), 1876–1889. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1146780
ValentineT. (1991). A unified account of the effects of distinctiveness, inversion, and race in face recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 43(2), 161–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749108400966
44.
WongA. C.-N.BukachC. M.HsiaoJ.GreensponE.AhernE.DuanY.LuiK. F. (2012). Holistic processing as a hallmark of perceptual expertise for nonface categories including Chinese characters. Journal of Vision, 12(13), 7–7. https://doi.org/10.1167/12.13.7
45.
WongA. C.-N.BukachC. M.YuenC.YangL.LeungS.GreensponE. (2011). Holistic processing of words modulated by reading experience. PloS one, 6(6), e20753. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020753
46.
WongA. C.-N.WongY. K.LuiK. F.NgT. Y.NganV. S. (2019). Sensitivity to configural information and expertise in visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45(1), 82–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000590
47.
WongY. K.TwedtE.SheinbergD.GauthierI. (2010). Does Thompson’s Thatcher effect reflect a face-specific mechanism?Perception, 39(8), 1125–1141. https://doi.org/10.1068/p6659
48.
YinR. K. (1969). Looking at upside-down faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81(1), 141–145. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027474
49.
YoungA.HellawellD.HayD. (1987). Configurational information in face perception. Perception, 16(6), 747–759. https://doi.org/10.1068/p160747
