To test the limits of parallel processing in vision, we investigated whether people can recognize two words at once. Participants viewed brief, masked pairs of words and were instructed in advance to judge both of the words (dual-task condition) or just one of the words (single-task condition). For judgments of semantic category, the dual-task deficit was so large that it supported all-or-none serial processing: Participants could recognize only one word and had to guess about the other. Moreover, participants were more likely to be correct about one word if they were incorrect about the other, which also supports a serial-processing model. In contrast, judgments of text color with identical stimuli were consistent with unlimited-capacity parallel processing. Thus, under these conditions, serial processing is necessary to judge the meaning of words but not their physical features. Understanding the implications of this result for natural reading will require further investigation.
AugustinovaM.FerrandL. (2014). Automaticity of word reading: Evidence from the semantic Stroop paradigm. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 343–348.
2.
BolesD. B. (1983). Hemispheric interaction in visual field asymmetry. Cortex, 19, 99–113.
3.
BonnelA.-M.PrinzmetalW. (1998). Dividing attention between the color and the shape of objects. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 113–124.
4.
BonnelA.-M.SteinJ. F.BertucciP. (1992). Does attention modulate the perception of luminance changes?The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44A, 601–626.
5.
BraunJ. (1998). Divided attention: Narrowing the gap between brain and behavior. In ParasuramanR. (Ed.), The attentive brain (pp. 327–351). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6.
BraunJ.JuleszB. (1998). Withdrawing attention at little or no cost: Detection and discrimination tasks. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 1–23.
7.
CarrascoM. (2011). Visual attention: The past 25 years. Vision Research, 51, 1484–1525.
8.
CarrascoM.YeshurunY. (1998). The contribution of covert attention to the set-size and eccentricity effects in visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 673–692.
9.
ChenZ.CowanN. (2009). Core verbal working-memory capacity: The limit in words retained without covert articulation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1420–1429.
10.
EngbertR.NuthmannA.RichterE. M.KlieglR. (2005). SWIFT: A dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. Psychological Review, 112, 777–813.
11.
ErnstZ. R.PalmerJ.BoyntonG. M. (2012). Dividing attention between two transparent motion surfaces results in a failure of selective attention. Journal of Vision, 12(12), Article 6. doi:10.1167/12.12.6
12.
GraingerJ.DufauS.ZieglerJ. C. (2016). A vision of reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20, 171–179.
13.
HarrisC. R.PashlerH. E.CoburnN. (2004). Moray revisited: High-priority affective stimuli and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A, 1–31.
14.
HohensteinS.KlieglR. (2014). Semantic preview benefit during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 166–190.
15.
KennedyA. (2000). Parafoveal processing in word recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 429–455.
16.
LeeD. K.KochC.BraunJ. (1999). Attentional capacity is undifferentiated: Concurrent discrimination of form, color, and motion. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 1241–1255.
17.
LiuY.ReichleE. D. (2017). Eye-movement evidence for object-based attention in Chinese reading. Psychological Science, 29, 278–287.
18.
MarianV.BartolottiJ.ChabalS.ShookA. (2012). Clearpond: Cross-linguistic easy-access resource for phonological and orthographic neighborhood densities. PLOS One, 7(8), Article e43230. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0043230
19.
MishkinM.ForgaysD. G. (1952). Word recognition as a function of retinal locus. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43, 43–48.
20.
MullinP. A.EgethH. E. (1989). Capacity limitations in visual word processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 111–123.
21.
MurrayW. S.FischerM. H.TatlerB. W. (2013). Serial and parallel processes in eye movement control: Current controversies and future directions. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 417–428.
22.
PastukhovA.FischerL.BraunJ. (2009). Visual attention is a single, integrated resource. Vision Research, 49, 1166–1173.
23.
PollackI.HsiehR. (1969). Sampling variability of the area under the ROC-curve and of d′e. Psychological Bulletin, 71, 161–173.
24.
PotterM. C. (1984). Rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP): A method for studying language processing. In KierasD.JustM. (Eds.), New methods in reading comprehension research (pp. 91–118). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
25.
RaynerK. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1457–1506.
26.
ReichleE. D.LiversedgeS. P.PollatsekA.RaynerK. (2009). Encoding multiple words simultaneously in reading is implausible. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 115–119.
27.
ReichleE. D.VanyukovP. M.LaurentP. A.WarrenT. (2008). Serial or parallel? Using depth-of-processing to examine attention allocation during reading. Vision Research, 48, 1831–1836.
28.
RobidouxS.BesnerD. (2015). Conflict resolved: On the role of spatial attention in reading and color naming tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 1709–1716. doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0830-7
29.
ScharffA.PalmerJ.MooreC. M. (2011). Extending the simultaneous–sequential paradigm to measure perceptual capacity for features and words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 813–833.
30.
SchotterE. R. (2013). Synonyms provide semantic preview benefit in English. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 619–633.
31.
SchotterE. R.ReichleE. D.RaynerK. (2014). Rethinking parafoveal processing in reading: Serial-attention models can explain semantic preview benefit and N+2 preview effects. Visual Cognition, 22, 309–333.
32.
ShawM. L. (1980). Identifying attentional and decision-making components in information processing. In NickersonR. (Ed.), Attention and performance VIII (pp. 277–296). New York, NY: Routledge.
33.
ShepherdsonP. V.MillerJ. (2014). Redundancy gain in semantic categorisation. Acta Psychologica, 148, 96–106.
34.
ShepherdsonP. V.MillerJ. (2016). Non-semantic contributions to “semantic” redundancy gain. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 1564–1582.
35.
SperlingG.MelchnerM. J. (1978). The attention operating characteristic: Examples from visual search. Science, 202, 315–318.
36.
StarrM. S.RaynerK. (2001). Eye movements during reading: Some current controversies. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 156–163.
37.
StroopJ. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.
38.
TorgesenJ.WagnerR.RashotteC. (1999). Test of Word Reading Efficiency: Manual. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
39.
TownsendJ. T. (1990). Serial vs. parallel processing: Sometimes they look like Tweedledum and Tweedledee but they can (and should) be distinguished. Psychological Science, 1, 46–54.
40.
WhiteA. L.RunesonE.PalmerJ.ErnstZ. R.BoyntonG. M. (2017). Evidence for unlimited capacity processing of simple features in visual cortex. Journal of Vision, 17(6), Article 19. doi:10.1167/17.6.19.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
