In three grammatical decision experiments, we examined the impact of alternating letter case on sentence reading to determine the locus of case-alternation effects. Experiments 1 and 2 compared grammatical decision responses (“Is this a grammatically correct sequence of words or not?”) in three different conditions: (1) SAME CASE/same case; (2) alternating CASE between WORDS; and (3) aLterNaTing cAsE wItHin WoRdS. For the grammatically correct sequences, we observed significantly faster responses in the same-case conditions compared with the between-word case manipulation, as well as a significant advantage for the between-word condition compared with within-word alternating case. These results confirm that case-alternation deteriorates sentence reading, but more so at the level of single word processing (within-word alternation) than at the sentence level (between-word alternation). Experiment 3 demonstrated that between-word case-alternation facilitates sentence processing compared with an all-lowercase condition when betweenWORDspacesAREremoved. Therefore, in the absence of between-word spacing, case changes across words facilitate sentence processing, possibly by guiding readers’ eyes to optimal locations for word identification.
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.
2.
BarrD. J.LevyR.ScheepersC.TilyH. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.
3.
BatesD. J.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.
4.
BesnerD. (1983). Basic decoding components in reading: Two dissociable feature extraction processes. Canadian Journal of Psychology / Revue Canadienne de Psychologie, 37, 429–438.
5.
BesnerD.McCannR. S. (1987). Word frequency and pattern distortion in visual word identification and production: An examination of four classes of models. In ColtheartM. (Ed.), Attention and performance 12: The psychology of reading (pp. 201–219). Routledge.
6.
BlaisC.BesnerD. (2005). When the visual format of the color carrier word does and does not modulate the Stroop effect. Memory & Cognition, 33, 1337–1344.
7.
BrysbaertM.StevensM. (2018). Power analysis and effect size in mixed effects models: A tutorial. Journal of Cognition, 1, Article 9.
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.
9.
FingerH.GoekeC.DiekampD.StandvoßK.KönigP. (2017). LabVanced: A unified JavaScript framework for online studies [Conference session, 2016, July 10–13]. 2017International Conference on Computational Social Science IC2S2, Cologne.
10.
FournetC.MiraultJ.PereaM.GraingerJ. (2022). Effects of letter case on processing sequences of written words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 48, 1995–2003.
11.
GraingerJ.JacobsA. M. (1996). Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple read-out model. Psychological Review, 103, 518–565.
12.
KinoshitaS. (1987). Case alternation effect: Two types of word recognition?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39, 701–720.
13.
MayallK.HumphreysG. W. (1996). Case mixing and the task-sensitive disruption of lexical processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 278–294.
14.
MiozzoM.CaramazzaA. (2003). When more is less: A counterintuitive effect of distractor frequency in the picture-word interference paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 228–252.
15.
MiraultJ.GraingerJ. (2020). On the time it takes to judge grammaticality. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73, 1460–1465.
16.
MiraultJ.SnellJ.GraingerJ. (2018). You that read wrong again! A transposed-word effect in grammaticality judgments. Psychological Science, 29, 1922–1929.
17.
MiraultJ.SnellJ.GraingerJ. (2019a). Reading without spaces: The role of precise letter order. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 81, 846–860.
18.
MiraultJ.SnellJ.GraingerJ. (2019b). Reading without spaces revisited: The role of word identification and sentence-level constraints. Acta Psychologica, 195, 22–29.
19.
PalanS.SchitterC. (2018). Prolific—A subject pool for online experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 17, 22–27.
20.
PereaM.AchaJ. (2009). Space information is important for reading. Vision Research, 49, 1994–2000.
21.
PereaM.Fernández-LópezM.MarcetA. (2020). Does CaSe-MiXinG disrupt the access to lexico-semantic information?Psychological Research, 84, 981–989.
22.
PereaM.RosaE.MarcetA. (2017). Where is the locus of the lowercase advantage during sentence reading?Acta Psychologica, 177, 30–35.
23.
PereaM.TejeroP.WinskelH. (2015a). Can colours be used to segment words when reading?Acta Psychologica, 159, 8–13.
24.
PereaM.Vergara-MartínezM.GomezP. (2015b). Resolving the locus of cAsE aLtErNaTiOn effects in visual word recognition: Evidence from masked priming. Cognition, 142, 39–43.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.05.007
25.
R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
26.
RaynerK.FischerM. H. (1996). Mindless reading revisited: Eye movements during reading and scanning are different. Perception & Psychophysics, 58, 734–747.
27.
RaynerK.FischerM. H.PollatsekA. (1998). Unspaced text interferes with both word identification and eye movement control. Vision Research, 38, 1129–1144.
28.
RaynerK.McConkieG. W.ZolaD. (1980). Integrating information across eye movements. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 206–226.
29.
RaynerK.PollatsekA. (1996). Reading unspaced text is not easy: Comments on the implications of Epelboim et al.’s (1994) study for models of eye movement control in reading. Vision Research, 36, 461–465.
30.
ReichleE. D. (2015). Computational models of reading: A primer. Language and Linguistics Compass, 9, 271–284.
31.
ReichleE. D.PollatsekA.FisherD. L.RaynerK. (1998). Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. Psychological Review, 105, 125–157.
32.
ReingoldE. M.YangJ.RaynerK. (2010). The time course of word frequency and case alternation effects on fixation times in reading: Evidence for lexical control of eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 1677–1683.
33.
SnellJ.van LeipsigS.GraingerJ.MeeterM. (2018). OB1-reader: A model of word recognition and eye movements in text reading. Psychological Review, 125, 969–984.
34.
SongZ.LiangX.WangY.YanG. (2021). Effect of alternating-color words on oral reading in grades 2–5 Chinese children: Evidence from eye movements. Reading and Writing, 34, 2627–2643.
35.
van HeuvenW. J.ManderaP.KeuleersE.BrysbaertM. (2014). SUBTLEX-UK: A new and improved word frequency database for British English. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 1176–1190.
36.
VeldreA.DriegheD.AndrewsS. (2017). Spelling ability selectively predicts the magnitude of disruption in unspaced text reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43, 1612–1628.
37.
VituF.O’ReganJ. K.InhoffA. W.TopolskiR. (1995). Mindless reading: Eye movement characteristics are similar in scanning letter strings and reading texts. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 352–364.
38.
ZhouW.YeW.YanM. (2020). Alternating-color words facilitate reading and eye movements among second-language learners of Chinese. Applied Psycholinguistics, 41, 685–699.
