This study explores the impact of visually similar flanking stimuli on central target words using the Flanking Letter Lexical Decision (FLLD) task. Specifically, we investigated whether visual similarity effects can explain orthographic relatedness effects observed in previous FLLD tasks. By employing non-reversal mirror letters as visual flankers, we compared their influence on response times to traditional orthographic-related and orthographic-unrelated conditions. Results confirmed the known facilitative effect of orthographic-related flankers on response times (ROCK ROCK ROCK). However, mirror-related conditions showed no facilitative effect (ROCK), as evidenced by a Bayesian analysis indicating no significant differences between mirror-related and mirror-unrelated (ROCK). These findings suggest that low-level visual information in the parafovea does not contribute to the processing of the foveal word in tasks requiring specific word identification. The study concludes that only parafoveal information with relevant linguistic content is spatially pooled across target and flankers during word identification tasks. This research highlights the need to consider task-specific attentional demands and the linguistic relevance of parafoveal information in understanding visual and orthographic processing in reading.
AhrE.HoudéO.BorstG. (2016). Inhibition of the mirror generalization process in reading in school-aged children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 145, 157–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.12.009
2.
AngeleB.TranR.RaynerK. (2013). Parafoveal–foveal overlap can facilitate ongoing word identification during reading: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(2), 526–538. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029492
3.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2023). Linear mixed-effects models using “Eigen” and S4 [R package lme4 version 1.1-35.1]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
4.
BrossetteB.MassolS.LétéB. (2022). Searching beyond the looking glass with sandwich priming. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 84(4), 1178–1192. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-021-02405-y
5.
BrysbaertM.StevensM. (2018). Power analysis and effect size in mixed effects models: A tutorial. Journal of Cognition, 1(1), Article 9. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.10
6.
BürknerP.-C. (2017). Brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v080.i01
7.
CornellJ. M. (1985). Spontaneous mirror-writing in children. Canadian Journal of Psychology / Revue Canadienne de Psychologie, 39(1), 174–179. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0080122
8.
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, 66(3), 487–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.703212
9.
DehaeneS.NakamuraK.JobertA.KurokiC.OgawaS.CohenL. (2010). Why do children make mirror errors in reading? Neural correlates of mirror invariance in the visual word form area. NeuroImage, 49(2), 1837–1848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.09.024
10.
DienesZ. (2014). Using Bayes to get the most out of non-significant results. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 00781. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00781
FernandesT.LeiteI.KolinskyR. (2016). Into the looking glass: Literacy acquisition and mirror invariance in Preschool and first-grade children. Child Development, 87(6), 2008–2025. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12550
14.
FernandesT.XavierE.DominguesM.AraújoS. (2022). Where is mirror invariance? Masked priming effects by mirrored and rotated transformations of reversible and nonreversible letters. Journal of Memory and Language, 127, Article 104375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2022.104375
15.
FerrandL.NewB.BrysbaertM.KeuleersE.BoninP.MéotA.AugustinovaM.PallierC. (2010). The French Lexicon Project: Lexical decision data for 38,840 French words and 38,840 pseudowords. Behavior Research Methods, 42(2), 488–496. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.2.488
16.
ForsterK. I.ForsterJ. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35(1), 116–124. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195503
17.
GraingerJ.MathôtS.VituF. (2014). Tests of a model of multi-word reading: Effects of parafoveal flanking letters on foveal word recognition. Acta Psychologica, 146, 35–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.11.014
18.
GraingerJ.SnellJ.BeyersmannE. (2021). Morphological processing in the flankers task. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 36(3), 288–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2020.1810292
19.
HendersonJ. M.FerreiraF. (1990). Effects of foveal processing difficulty on the perceptual span in reading: Implications for attention and eye movement control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(3), 417–429. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.16.3.417
20.
InhoffA. W.StarrM.ShindlerK. L. (2000). Is the processing of words during eye fixations in reading strictly serial?Perception & Psychophysics, 62(7), 1474–1484. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212147
LétéB.Sprenger-CharollesL.ColéP. (2004). MANULEX: A grade-level lexical database from French elementary school readers. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(1), 156–166. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195560
24.
MarcetA.PereaM. (2017). Is nevtral NEUTRAL? Visual similarity effects in the early phases of written-word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(4), 1180–1185. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1180-9
25.
MarcetA.PereaM. (2018). Visual letter similarity effects during sentence reading: Evidence from the boundary technique. Acta Psychologica, 190, 142–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.08.007
MiraultJ.SnellJ.GraingerJ. (2018). You that read wrong again! A transposed-word effect in grammaticality judgments. Psychological Science, 29(12), 1922–1929. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618806296
28.
PegadoF.NakamuraK.CohenL.DehaeneS. (2011). Breaking the symmetry: Mirror discrimination for single letters but not for pictures in the Visual Word Form Area. NeuroImage, 55(2), 742–749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.11.043
29.
PereaM.DuñabeitiaJ. A.CarreirasM. (2008). R34D1NG W0RD5 W1TH NUMB3R5. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(1), 237–241. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.34.1.237
30.
PereaM.Moret-TatayC.PanaderoV. (2011). Suppression of mirror generalization for reversible letters: Evidence from masked priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 65(3), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.04.005
31.
PollatsekA.ReichleE. D.RaynerK. (2006). Tests of the E-Z Reader model: Exploring the interface between cognition and eye-movement control. Cognitive Psychology, 52(1), 1–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.06.001
32.
PynteJ.KennedyA.DucrotS. (2004). The influence of parafoveal typographical errors on eye movements in reading. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16(1–2), 178–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440340000169
RaynerK.JuhaszB. J.BrownS. J. (2007). Do readers obtain preview benefit from word n + 2? A test of serial attention shift versus distributed lexical processing models of eye movement control in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(1), 230–245. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.33.1.230
35.
RaynerK.McConkieG. W.EhrlichS. (1978). Eye movements and integrating information across fixations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4(4), 529–544. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.4.4.529
36.
ReichleE. D.PollatsekA.FisherD. L.RaynerK. (1998). Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. Psychological Review, 105(1), 125–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.105.1.125
37.
ReichleE. D.PollatsekA.RaynerK. (2006). E–Z Reader: A cognitive-control, serial-attention model of eye-movement behavior during reading. Cognitive Systems Research, 7(1), 4–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2005.07.002
38.
ReichleE. D.RaynerK.PollatsekA. (1999). Eye movement control in reading: Accounting for initial fixation locations and refixations within the E-Z Reader model. Vision Research, 39(26), 4403–4411. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-6989(99)00152-2
39.
ReichleE. D.RaynerK.PollatsekA. (2003). The E-Z Reader model of eye-movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26(4), 445–476. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X03000104
40.
ReingoldE. M.SheridanH.MeadmoreK. L.DriegheD.LiversedgeS. P. (2016). Attention and eye-movement control in reading: The selective reading paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(12), 2003–2020. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000291
41.
RouderJ. N.SpeckmanP. L.SunD.MoreyR. D.IversonG. (2009). Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(2), 225–237. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.2.225
42.
SchotterE. R.PayneB. R. (2019). Eye movements and comprehension are important to reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(10), 811–812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.06.005
43.
SearleS. R.SpeedF. M.MillikenG. A. (2024). Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means [R package emmeans version 1.10.0]. American Statistician, 34(4), 216–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1980.10483031
44.
SnellJ.DeclerckM.GraingerJ. (2018). Parallel semantic processing in reading revisited: Effects of translation equivalents in bilingual readers. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33(5), 563–574. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2017.1392583
SnellJ.MeeterM.GraingerJ. (2017). Evidence for simultaneous syntactic processing of multiple words during reading. PLOS ONE, 12(3), Article e0173720. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173720
47.
SnellJ.Van LeipsigS.GraingerJ.MeeterM. (2018). OB1-reader: A model of word recognition and eye movements in text reading. Psychological Review, 125(6), 969–984. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000119
48.
WhiteA. L.BoyntonG. M.YeatmanJ. D. (2019). You can’t recognize two words simultaneously. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(10), 812–814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.07.001
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.
