Several studies have shown that parafoveal processing is essential in reading development. In this study, we explore the effect of transposing and substituting inner and outer letters in a flanker lexical decision task administered to 78 children and 65 adults. The results show a significant interaction between the Group factor and the Flanker factor, suggesting differences in the effects of flankers for children and adults. In the case of adults, transposed and substituted letters generated benefit of the same magnitude in comparison with the unrelated condition, but of lesser magnitude than the Identity condition. In the case of children, the results show facilitation for the transposed conditions of the same magnitude as the Identity condition. However, the substitution conditions failed to generate any benefit in comparison with the unrelated condition. The results for the adults are in line with the predictions of the open bigram model, whereas the results for the children are explained through a developmental perspective of the dual-route architecture and open bigram framework.
AchaJ.PereaM. (2008). The effects of length and transposed-letter similarity in lexical decision: Evidence with beginning, intermediate, and adult readers. British Journal of Psychology, 99(2), 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712607X224478
2.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
3.
BoumaH. (1973). Visual interference in the parafoveal recognition of initial and final letters of words. Visual Research, 13, 767–782.
4.
CarreirasM.VergaraM.PereaM. (2009). ERP correlates of transposed-letter priming effects: The role of vowels versus consonants. Psychophysiology, 46(1), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2008.00725.x
5.
CastlesA.DavisC.CavalotP.ForsterK. I. (2007). Tracking the acquisition of orthographic skills in developing readers: Masked form priming and transposed-letter effects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 97(3), 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2007.01.006
6.
CauchiC.BeyersmannE.LétéB.GraingerJ. A. (2022). Developmental perspective on morphological processing in the flanker task. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 221, 105448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2022.105448
7.
DareN.ShillcockR. (2013). Serial and parallel processing in reading: Investigating the effects of parafoveal orthographic information on non-isolated word recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(3), 487–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.703212
8.
DavisC. J. (1999). The self-organizing lexical acquisition and recognition (SOLAR) model of visual word recognition [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of New South Wales.
9.
DavisC. J. (2010). The spatial coding model of visual Word identification. Psychological Review, 117, 713–758.
10.
DuchonA.PereaM.Sebastián-GallésN.MartíA.CarreirasM. (2013). EsPal: One-stop shopping for Spanish word properties. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1246–1258. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0326-1
11.
ForsterK. I.DavisC.SchoknechtC.CarterR. (1987). Masked priming with graphemically related forms: Repetition or partial activation?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39(2), 211–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748708401785
12.
ForsterK. I.ForsterJ. (2003). DMDX: A windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35(1), 116–124. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03195503
13.
FournetC.CauchiC.PereaM.GraingerJ. (2023). Constraints on integration of orthographic information across multiple stimuli: Effects of contiguity, eccentricity, and attentional span. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 85, 2065–2082. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-023-02758-6
14.
FoxJ.WeisbergS. (2011). An R companion to applied regression (2nd ed.). Sage.
15.
FrithU. (1985). Beneath the surface of developmental dyslexia. In PattersonK.MarshallJ.ColtheartM. (Eds.), Surface dyslexia (pp. 287–295). University Park Press.
16.
GómezP.MarcetA.PereaM. (2022). Are better young readers more likely to confuse their mother with their mohter?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74(9), 1542–1552. https://10.1177/17470218211012960
GraingerJ.MathôtS.VituF. (2014). Tests of a model of multiword reading: Effects of parafoveal flanking letters on foveal word recognition. Acta Psychologica, 146(1), 35–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.11.014
20.
GraingerJ.SnellJ.BeyersmannE. (2020). Morphological processing in the flankers task. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 36(6), 288–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2020.1810292
21.
GraingerJ.van HeuvenW. (2003). Modeling letter position coding in printed word perception. In BoninP. (Ed.), The mental lexicon (pp. 1–23). Nova Science Publishers.
HasenäckerJ.SchroederS. (2022). Transposed and substituted letter effects across reading development: A longitudinal study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 48(8), 1202–1218. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001064
24.
JohnsonR. L.DunneM. D. (2012). Parafoveal processing of transposed-letter words and nonwords: Evidence against parafoveal lexical activation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(1), 191–212. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025983
25.
JohnsonR. L.PereaM.RaynerK. (2007). Transposed-letter effects in reading: Evidence from eye movements and parafoveal preview. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(1), 209–229.
26.
KirkbyJ.BarringtonR. S.DriegheD.LiversedgeS. P. (2022). Parafoveal processing and transposed-letter effects in dyslexic reading. Dyslexia, 28(3), 359–374. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1721
27.
LázaroM.GarcíaA.IlleraV.GarcíaL.AchaJ. (2022). The effect of semantic transparency in a flanker task: Different roles for stems and derivational suffixes. Experimental Psychology, 69(3), 132–145. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000553
28.
LázaroM.GarcíaL.IlleraV. (2023). How flexible is the orthographic processing of flankers? Effects for letter order and letter identification. Language and Cognition, 15, 670–688. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2023.5
29.
LeeC. E.PagánA.GodwinH. J.DriegheD. (2024). Individual differences and the transposed letter effect during reading. PLOS ONE, 19(2), Article e0298351.
30.
LeggeG. E.MansfieldJ. S. (1997). The visual span for reading decreases in peripheral vision. Investigative Ophthalmology and Vision Science, 38, 223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2007.11.022
31.
LeggeG. E.MansfieldJ. S.ChungS. T. (2001). Psychophysics of reading. Linking letter recognition to reading speed in central and peripheral vision. Vision Research, 4, 725–743. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0042-6989(00)00295-9
LétéB.FayolM. (2013). Substituted-letter and transposed-letter effects in a masked priming paradigm with French developing readers and dyslexics. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114(1), 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2012.09.001
34.
MasonM. (1982). Recognition time for letters and nonletters: Effects of serial position, array size, and processing order. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 724–738.
35.
MiraultJ.YeatonJ.BroquaF.DufauS.HolcombP. J.GraingerJ. (2020). Parafoveal-on-foveal repetition effects in sentence reading: A co-registered eye-tracking and electroencephalogram study. Psychophysiology, 57, Article e13553. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13553
36.
PagánA.BlytheH. I.LiversedgeS. P. (2021). The influence of children’s reading ability on initial letter position encoding during a reading-like task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 47, 1186–1203. https://doi/org/10.1037/xlm0000989
37.
PereaM.EstévezA. (2008). Transposed-letter similarity effects in naming pseudowords: Evidence from children and adults. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 20(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440701306941
38.
PereaM.LupkerS. J. (2003). Transposed-letter confusability effects in masked form priming. In KinoshitaS.LupkerS. J. (Eds.), Masked priming: State of the art (pp. 97–120). Psychology Press.
39.
PereaM.RosaE.GómezC. (2005). The frequency effect for pseudowords in the lexical decision task. Perception & Psychophysics, 67(2), 301–314. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206493
40.
PeressottiF.GraingerJ. (1999). The role of letter identity and letter position in orthographic priming. Perception & Psychophysics, 61(4), 691–706. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03205539
41.
RaynerK. (1975). The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 65–81.
42.
RaynerK.MorrisonR. E. (1981). Eye movements and identifying words in parafoveal vision. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 17(3), 135–138. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03333690
43.
RaynerK.WhiteS. J.JohnsonR. L.LiversedgeS. P. (2006). Raeding wrods with jubmled lettres: There is a cost. Psychological Science, 17, 192–193.
44.
RumelhartD. E.McClellandJ. L. (1982). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 2. The contextual enhancement effect and some tests and extensions of the model. Psychological Review, 89, 60–94.
45.
SchoonbaertS.GraingerJ. (2004). Letter position coding in printed word perception: Effects of repeated and transposed letters. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19(3), 333–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960344000198
SnellJ. (2024). PONG: A computational model of visual word recognition through bihemispheric activation. Psychological Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000461
50.
SnellJ.CauchiC.GraingerJ.LétéB. (2021). Attention extends beyond single words in beginning readers. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 83, 238–246. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-020-02184-y
51.
SnellJ.GraingerJ. (2018). Parallel word processing in the flanker paradigm has a rightward bias. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80, 1512–1519. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-018-1547-2
52.
SpinelliG.ColomboL.LupkerS. J. (2022). Consonant and vowel transposition effects during reading development: A study on Italian children and adults. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 75(11), 2023–2042. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218211066301
53.
Tiffin-RichardsS. P.SchroederS. (2015). Children’s and adults’ parafoveal processes in German: Phonological and orthographic effects. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27(5), 531–548. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2014.999076
54.
TydgatI.GraingerJ. (2009). Serial position effects in the identification of letters, digits, and symbols. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Human Perception and Performance, 35(2), 480–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013027
55.
VeldreA.ReichleE. D.YuL.AndrewsS. (2022). Understanding the visual constraints on lexical processing: New empirical and simulation results. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(3), 693–722. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001295
56.
WilliamsC. C.PereaM.PollatsekA.RaynerK. (2006). Previewing the neighborhood: The role of orthographic neighbors as parafoveal previews in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(4), 1072–1082. https://doi.org:10.1037/0096-1523.32.4.1072
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.
