We sought evidence for letter-specific processing in the same-different matching task by comparing performance to random consonant strings and either strings of symbols (Experiment 1) or strings of digits (Experiment 2). The strings could be aligned horizontally or vertically, and on “different” response trials the to-be-matched strings could differ by the transposition of two adjacent characters or by the substitution of two adjacent characters. Making a “different” response was harder when the difference involved a transposition compared with a substitution—the transposition effect. Crucially, the transposition effect was significantly greater for letters than for symbols or digits when stimuli were aligned horizontally, but did not differ significantly across stimulus type with vertically aligned strings. These results suggest that it is processing specific to horizontally aligned letter strings, a reading-specific mechanism, that causes the greater transposition effects for letter stimuli in the same-different matching task when stimuli are arranged horizontally.
AschenbrennerA. J.BalotaD. A.WeigandA. J.ScaltrittiM.BesnerD. (2017). The first letter position effect in visual word recognition: The role of spatial attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43, 700–718. doi:10.1037/xhp0000342
2.
BaayenR. H.DavidsonD. J.BatesD. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
3.
BaayenR. H.MilinP. (2010). Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3, 12–28.
4.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4 (R package version 1.1-5). Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
5.
ChanceauxM.GraingerJ. (2012). Serial position effects in the identification of letters, digits, symbols, and shapes in peripheral vision. Acta Psychologica, 141, 149–158. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.08.001
6.
ChanceauxM.MathôtS.GraingerJ. (2013). Flank to the left, flank to the right: Testing the modified receptive field hypothesis of letter-specific crowding. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25, 774–780. doi:10.1080/20445911.2013.823436
7.
ChanceauxM.MathôtS.GraingerJ. (2014). Effects of number, complexity, and familiarity of flankers on crowded letter identification. Journal of Vision, 14, 7. doi:10.1167/14.6.7
8.
CousineauD. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1, 42–45. doi:10.20982/tqmp.01.1.p042
9.
DavisC. J. (2010). The spatial coding model of visual word identification. Psychological Review, 117, 713–758. doi:10.1037/a0019738
10.
DufauS.GraingerJ.HolcombP. J. (2008). An ERP investigation of location invariance in masked repetition priming. Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 8, 222–228. doi:10.3758/CABN.8.2.222
11.
DuñabeitiaJ. A.DimitropoulouM.GraingerJ.HernándezJ. A.CarreirasM. (2012). Differential sensitivity of letters, numbers and symbols to character transpositions. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24, 1610–1624. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00180
12.
DuñabeitiaJ. A.OrihuelaK.CarreirasM. (2014). Orthographic coding in illiterates and literates (English). Psychological Science, 25, 1275–1280. doi:10.1177/0956797614531026
García-OrzaJ.PereaM.MuñozS. (2010). Are transposition effects specific to letters?The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1603–1618. doi:10.1080/17470210903474278
15.
GómezP.RatcliffR.PereaM. (2008). The overlap model: A model of letter position coding. Psychological Review, 115, 577–600. doi:10.1037/a0012667
16.
GraingerJ. (2008). Cracking the orthographic code: An introduction. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 1–35. doi:10.1080/01690960701578013
17.
GraingerJ.DufauS.ZieglerJ. C. (2016). A vision of reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20, 171–179. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2015.12.008
18.
GraingerJ.HannaganT. (2014). What is special about orthographic processing?Written Language & Literacy, 17, 225–252. doi:10.1075/wll.17.2.03gra
19.
GraingerJ.HolcombP. J. (2009). Watching the word go by: On the time-course of component processes in visual word recognition. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3, 128–156. doi:10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00121.x
20.
GraingerJ.TydgatI.IsseléJ. (2010). Crowding affects letters and symbols differently. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 673–688. doi:10.1037/a0016888
21.
GraingerJ.van HeuvenW. J. B. (2003). Modeling letter position coding in printed word perception. In BoninP. (Ed.), The mental lexicon (pp. 1–23). New York, NY: Nova Science.
22.
GraingerJ.WhitneyC. (2004). Does the human mind read words as a whole?Trends in Cognitive Science, 8, 58–59. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2003.11.006
23.
HothornT.BretzF.WestfallP. (2008). Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometrical Journal, 50, 346–363. doi:10.1002/bimj.200810425
24.
KtoriM.KingmaB.HannaganT.HolcombP. J.GraingerJ. (2014). On the time-course of adjacent and non-adjacent transposed-letter priming. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26, 491–505. doi:10.1080/20445911.2014.922092
25.
LoganG. D. (1996). The CODE theory of visual attention: An integration of space-based and object-based attention. Psychological Review, 103, 603–649. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.4.603
26.
MassolS.DuñabeitiaJ. A.CarreirasM.GraingerJ. (2013). Evidence for letter-specific position coding mechanisms. PLoS ONE, 8, e68460. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068460
27.
NorrisD. (2006). The Bayesian reader: Explaining word recognition as an optimal Bayesian decision process. Psychological Review, 113, 327–357. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.113.2.327
28.
PereaM.García-ChamorroC.CentellesA.JiménezM. (2013). Position coding effects in a 2D scenario: The case of musical notation. Acta Psychologica, 143, 292–297. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy .2013.04.014
29.
PereaM.LupkerS. J. (2004). Can CANISO activate CASINO? TL similarity effects with nonadjacent letter positions. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 231–246. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.005
30.
RatcliffR. (1981). A theory of order relations in perceptual matching. Psychological Review, 88, 552–572. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.88.6.552
31.
ScaltrittiM.DufauS.GraingerJ. (2018). Stimulus orientation and the first-letter advantage. Acta Psychologica, 183, 37–42. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.12.009
32.
SchoonbaertS.GraingerJ. (2004). Letter position coding in printed word perception: Effects of repeated and transposed letters. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19, 333–367. doi:10.1080/01690960344000198
33.
TydgatI.GraingerJ. (2009). Serial position effects in the identification of letters, digits, and symbols. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 480–498. doi:10.1037/a0013027
34.
VenablesW. N.RipleyB. D. (2002). Modern applied statistics with S (4th ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
35.
WhitneyC. (2001). How the brain encodes the order of letters in a printed word: The SERIOL model and selective literature review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 221–243. doi:10.3758/bf03196158
36.
WitzelN.QiaoX.ForsterK. (2011). Transposed letter priming with horizontal and vertical text in Japanese and English readers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 914–920. doi:10.1037/a0022194
37.
YuD.ParkH.GeroldD.LeggeG. E. (2010). Comparing reading speed for horizontal and vertical English text. Journal of Vision, 10, 1–17. doi:10.1167/10.2.21
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.
