10 good and 10 poor Grade 6 readers judged tachistoscopically presented word pairs to be “same” or “different” when the words making up the pairs were both normally oriented, both mirrored, or one was oriented and the other was mirrored. Good readers made fewer errors than poor readers on normally oriented “same” pairs but showed no advantage on other configurations. Poor readers were more accurate in detecting mismatches than good readers. These results were discussed in terms of the mechanism that may have been implicated.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BradshawJ. L.BradleyD.PattersonK.The perception and identification of mirror-reversed patterns. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1976, 28, 221–246.
2.
CohenG.Hemisphere differences in the effects of cueing in visual recognition tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1975, 1, 366–373.
3.
EgethH.BleckerD.Differential effects of familiarity on judgments of sameness and difference. Perception & Psychophysics, 1971, 9, 321–326.
4.
HeronW.Perception as a function of retinal locus, and attention. American Journal of Psychology, 1957, 70, 38–48.
5.
IsseroffA.CarmonA.NachsonI.Dissociation of hemifield time differences from stimulus directionality. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974, 103, 145–149.
6.
KatzL.WicklundD. A.Word scanning rate for good and poor readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1971, 62, 138–140.
7.
KatzL.WicklundD. A.Letter scanning rate for good and poor readers in grades two and six. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1972, 63, 363–367.
8.
MasonM.Reading ability and letter search time: Effects of orthographic structure defined by single letter positional frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1975, 1, 146–166.
9.
OrtonS. T.Reading, writing and speech problems in children.New York: Norton, 1937.
10.
WellA. D.PollatsekA.SchindlerR. M.Facilitation of both “same” and “different” judgments of letter strings by familiarity of letter sequence. Perception & Psychophysics, 1975, 17, 511–520.
