Whether attention is allocated to an entire word or can be confined to part of a word was examined in an experiment using a visual composite task. Participants saw a study word, a cue to attend to either the right or left half, and a test word, and indicated if the cued half of the words (e.g., left) was the same (e.g., TOLD-TONE) or different (e.g., TOLD-WINE). Prior research using this task reports a larger congruency effect for low-frequency words relative to high-frequency words but extraneous variables were not equated. In this study (N = 33), lexical (orthographic neighbourhood density) and sublexical (bigram frequency) variables were controlled, and word frequency was manipulated. Results indicate that word frequency does not moderate the degree to which parts of a word can be selectively attended/ignored. Response times to high-frequency words were faster than response times to low-frequency words but the congruency effect was equivalent. The data support a capacity model where attention is equally distributed across low-frequency and high-frequency words but low-frequency words require additional processing resources.
AdelmanJ. S.MarquisS. J.Sabatos-DeVitoM. G. (2010). Letters in words are read simultaneously, not in left-to-right sequence. Psychological Science, 2112(12), 1799–1801. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610387442
2.
BalotaD. A.YapM. J.CorteseM. J.HutchisonK. A.KesslerB.LoftisB.NeelyJ. H.NelsonD. L.SimpsonG. B.TreimanR. (2007). The English Lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445–459.
3.
BesnerD.StolzJ. A.BoutilierC. (1997). The Stroop effect and the myth of automaticity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 42(2), 221–225. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209396
4.
BurtJ. S. (2002). Why do noncolor words interfere with color naming?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(12), 1019–1038.
5.
CarreirasM.ArmstrongB. C.PereaM.FrostR. (2014). The what, when, where, and how of visual word recognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 182(2), 90–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.11.005
6.
ChenC.AbbasiN. H.SongS.ChenJ.LiH. (2016). The limited impact of exposure duration on holistic word processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 646.
7.
ColtheartM.RastleK. (1994). Serial processing in reading aloud: Evidence for dual-route models of reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(6), 1197–1211.
8.
ColtheartM.RastleK.PerryC.LangdonR.ZieglerJ. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 1081(1), 204–256.
9.
DareN.ShillcockR. (2013). Serial and parallel processing in reading: Investigating the effects of parafoveal orthographic information on nonisolated word recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 663(3), 487–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.703212
10.
DehaeneS. (2005). Evolution of human cortical circuits for reading and arithmetic: The “neuronal recycling” hypothesis. In DehaeneS.DuhamelJ. R.HauserM.RizzolattiG. (Eds.), From monkey brain to human brain (pp. 133–1157). MIT Press.
11.
de ZubicarayG. I.McMahonK. L.EastburnM. M.FinniganS.HumphreysM. S. (2005). fMRI evidence of word frequency and strength effects in recognition memory. Cognitive Brain Research, 243(3), 587–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.03.009
12.
EglyR.DriverJ.RafalR. D. (1994). Shifting visual attention between objects and locations: Evidence from normal and parietal lesion subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1232(2), 161–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.123.2.161
13.
EysenckM. W.EysenckM. C. (1980). Effects of processing depth, distinctiveness, and word frequency on retention. British Journal of Psychology, 712(2), 263–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1980.tb01743.x
14.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.BuchnerA. (2007). GPower 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 392(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
15.
GauthierI.WilliamsP.TarrM. J.TanakaJ. (1998). Training “greeble” experts: A framework for studying expert object recognition processes. Vision Research, 38(15–16), 2401–2428. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-6989(97)00442-2
16.
GlanzerM.AdamsJ. K. (1990). The mirror effect in recognition memory: Data and theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 161(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.16.1.5
GraingerJ.WhitneyC. (2004). Does the huamn mnid raed wrods as a wlohe?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(2), 58–59.
19.
HoleG. J. (1994). Configurational factors in the perception of unfamiliar faces. Perception, 231(1), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1068/p230065
20.
JaroszA. F.WileyJ. (2014). What are the odds? A practical guide to computing and reporting Bayes factors. Journal of Problem Solving, 71(1), 2–9. https://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1167
21.
JASP Team. (2018). JASP (Version 0.9) [Computer Software].
22.
JohnsonN. F. (1986). On looking at letters within words: Do we “see” them in memory?Journal of Memory and Language, 255(5), 558–570.
23.
JohnstonW. A.HawleyK. J.PleweS. H.ElliottJ. M. G.DeWittM. J. (1990). Attention capture by novel stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119(4), 397–411. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.119.4.397
24.
KahanT. A.EnnsJ. T. (2010). Object trimming: When masking dots alter rather than replace target representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(1), 88–102.
25.
KučeraH.FrancisW. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present day American English. Brown University Press.
26.
LarsenR. J.MercerK. A.BalotaD. A. (2006). Lexical characteristics of words used in emotional Stroop experiments. Emotion, 61(1), 62–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.6.1.62
27.
LundK.BurgessC. (1996). Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 282(2), 203–208. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204766
28.
MalmbergK. J.NelsonT. O. (2003). The word frequency effect for recognition memory and the elevated-attention hypothesis. Memory & Cognition, 311(1), 35–43. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196080
29.
MassonM. J. (2011). A tutorial on a practical Bayesian alternative to null-hypothesis significance testing. Behavior Research Methods, 433(3), 679–690. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-010-0049-5
30.
McClellandJ. L.RumelhartD. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 885(5), 375–407. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.5.375
31.
MooreC. M.FultonC. (2005). The spread of attention to hidden portions of occluded surfaces. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 122(2), 301–306. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196376
32.
Naveh-BenjaminM.CraikF. I. M.GuezJ.DoriH. (1998). Effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes in human memory: Further support for an asymmetry. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 245(5), 1091–1104. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.24.5.1091
33.
Naveh-BenjaminM.GuezJ. (2000). Effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes: Assessment of attentional costs and a componential analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 266(6), 1461–1482. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.26.6.1461
34.
NeelyJ. H.KahanT. A. (2001). Is semantic activation automatic? A critical re-evaluation. In RoedigerH. I.NairneJ. S.NeathI.SurprenantA. M. (Eds.), The nature of remembering: Essays in honor of Robert G. Crowder (pp. 69–93). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10394-005.
35.
NeillW. T.LissnerL. S.BeckJ. L. (1990). Negative priming in same-different matching: Further evidence for a central locus of inhibition. Perception & Psychophysics, 484(4), 398–400. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206694
36.
OswaldK.HumphreysW.-G. W.OlsonA. (2002). Words are more than the sum of their parts: Evidence for detrimental effects of word-level information in alexia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 19(8), 675–695.
37.
PelliD. G.TillmanK. (2007). Parts, wholes, and context in reading: A triple dissociation. PLOS ONE, 2, Article C680.
PosnerM. I.NissenM. J.OgdenW. C. (1978). Attended and unattended processing modes: The role for spatial location. In PickN. H. L.SaltzmanI. J. (Eds.), Modes of perceiving and processing information (pp. 137–157). Lawrence Erlbaum.
40.
PosnerM. I.SnyderC. R. R. (1975). Facilitation and inhibition in the processing of signals. In RabbittP. M. A.DornicS. (Eds.), Attention and performance V (pp. 669–682). Academic Press.
41.
RederL. M.NhouyvanisvongA.SchunnC. D.AyersM. S.AngstadtP.HirakiK. (2000). A mechanistic account of the mirror effect for word frequency: A computational model of remember-know judgments in a continuous recognition paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 262(2), 294–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.26.2.294
42.
RichardA. M.LeeH.VeceraS. P. (2008). Attentional spreading in object-based attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 344(4), 842–853. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.34.4.842
SnellJ.GraingerJ. (2018). Parallel word processing in the flanker paradigm has a rightward bias. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 806(6), 1512–1519. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-018-1547-2
46.
StanislawH.TodorovN. (1999). Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 311(1), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03207704
47.
StolzJ. A.BesnerD. (1999). On the myth of automatic semantic activation in reading. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 82(2), 61–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00015
48.
StrayerD. L.JohnstonW. A. (2000). Novel popout is an attention-based phenomenon: An ERP analysis. Perception & Psychophysics, 623(3), 459–470. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212098
49.
StrotherL. (2019). A neural basis of the serial bottleneck in visual word recognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(20), 9699–9700. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1905456116
50.
StrotherL.CorosA. M.VilisT. (2016). Visual cortical representation of whole words and hemifield-split word parts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 282(2), 252–260. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00900
51.
VenturaP. (2014). Let’s face it: Reading acquisition, face and word processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 787. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00787
52.
VenturaP.FernandesT.LeiteI.AlmeidaV.CasqueiroI.WongA. (2017). The word composite effect depends on abstract lexical representations but not surface features like case and font. Frontiers in Perception Science, 8, Article 1036. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01036
53.
VenturaP.FernandesT.PereiraA.GuerreiroJ. C.Farinha-FernandesA.DelgadoJ.FerreiraM. F.FaustinoB.RaposoI.WongA. C.-N. (2020). Holistic word processing is correlated with efficiency in visual word recognition. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 82, 2739–2750. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-020-01988-2
54.
VenturaP.PereiraA.XufreE.PereiraM.RibeiroS.FerreiraI.MadeiraM.MartinsA.DominguesM. (2019). Holistic word context does not influence holistic processing of artificial objects in an interleaved composite task. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 816(6), 1767–1780. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01812-6
55.
WagenmakersE. (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 145(5), 779–804. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194105
56.
WhiteA. L.PalmerJ.BoyntonG. M.YeatmanJ. D. (2019). Parallel spatial channels converge at a bottleneck in anterior word-selective cortex. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 11620(20), 10087–10096.
57.
WongA. C.-N.BukachC. M.HsiaoJ.GreensponE.AhernE.DuanY.LuiK. F. H. (2012). Holistic processing as a hallmark of perceptual expertise for nonface categories including Chinese characters. Journal of Vision, 12(13), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.1167/12.13.7
58.
WongA. C.-N.BukachC. M.YuenC.LizhuangY.ShirleyL.GreensponE. (2011). Holistic processing of words modulated by reading experience. PLOS ONE, 6(6), Article e20753. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020753
59.
YarkoniT.BalotaD.YapM. (2008). Moving beyond Coltheart’s N: A new measure of orthographic similarity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 155(5), 971–979. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.5.971
60.
YoungA. W.HellawellD.HayD. C. (1987). Configurational information in face perception. Perception, 16(6), 747–759. https://doi.org/10.1068/p160747
61.
ZhaoJ.KongF.WangY. (2013). Attentional spreading in object-based attention: The roles of target-object integration and target presentation time. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75(5), 876–887. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-013-0445-x
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.
