Cargando…

Visual word recognition: Evidence for a serial bottleneck in lexical access

Reading is a demanding task, constrained by inherent processing capacity limits. Do those capacity limits allow for multiple words to be recognized in parallel? In a recent study, we measured semantic categorization accuracy for nouns presented in pairs. The words were replaced by post-masks after a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: White, Alex L., Palmer, John, Boynton, Geoffrey M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7297702/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31832892
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01916-z
_version_ 1783547060516028416
author White, Alex L.
Palmer, John
Boynton, Geoffrey M.
author_facet White, Alex L.
Palmer, John
Boynton, Geoffrey M.
author_sort White, Alex L.
collection PubMed
description Reading is a demanding task, constrained by inherent processing capacity limits. Do those capacity limits allow for multiple words to be recognized in parallel? In a recent study, we measured semantic categorization accuracy for nouns presented in pairs. The words were replaced by post-masks after an interval that was set to each subject’s threshold, such that with focused attention they could categorize one word with ~80% accuracy. When subjects tried to divide attention between both words, their accuracy was so impaired that it supported a serial processing model: on each trial, subjects could categorize one word but had to guess about the other. In the experiments reported here, we investigated how our previous result generalizes across two tasks that require lexical access but vary in the depth of semantic processing (semantic categorization and lexical decision), and across different masking stimuli, word lengths, lexical frequencies and visual field positions. In all cases, the serial processing model was supported by two effects: (1) a sufficiently large accuracy deficit with divided compared to focused attention; and (2) a trial-by-trial stimulus processing tradeoff, meaning that the response to one word was more likely to be correct if the response to the other was incorrect. However, when the task was to detect colored letters, neither of those effects occurred, even though the post-masks limited accuracy in the same way. Altogether, the results are consistent with the hypothesis that visual processing of words is parallel but lexical access is serial. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.3758/s13414-019-01916-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7297702
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72977022020-06-19 Visual word recognition: Evidence for a serial bottleneck in lexical access White, Alex L. Palmer, John Boynton, Geoffrey M. Atten Percept Psychophys Article Reading is a demanding task, constrained by inherent processing capacity limits. Do those capacity limits allow for multiple words to be recognized in parallel? In a recent study, we measured semantic categorization accuracy for nouns presented in pairs. The words were replaced by post-masks after an interval that was set to each subject’s threshold, such that with focused attention they could categorize one word with ~80% accuracy. When subjects tried to divide attention between both words, their accuracy was so impaired that it supported a serial processing model: on each trial, subjects could categorize one word but had to guess about the other. In the experiments reported here, we investigated how our previous result generalizes across two tasks that require lexical access but vary in the depth of semantic processing (semantic categorization and lexical decision), and across different masking stimuli, word lengths, lexical frequencies and visual field positions. In all cases, the serial processing model was supported by two effects: (1) a sufficiently large accuracy deficit with divided compared to focused attention; and (2) a trial-by-trial stimulus processing tradeoff, meaning that the response to one word was more likely to be correct if the response to the other was incorrect. However, when the task was to detect colored letters, neither of those effects occurred, even though the post-masks limited accuracy in the same way. Altogether, the results are consistent with the hypothesis that visual processing of words is parallel but lexical access is serial. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.3758/s13414-019-01916-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer US 2019-12-12 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7297702/ /pubmed/31832892 http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01916-z Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Article
White, Alex L.
Palmer, John
Boynton, Geoffrey M.
Visual word recognition: Evidence for a serial bottleneck in lexical access
title Visual word recognition: Evidence for a serial bottleneck in lexical access
title_full Visual word recognition: Evidence for a serial bottleneck in lexical access
title_fullStr Visual word recognition: Evidence for a serial bottleneck in lexical access
title_full_unstemmed Visual word recognition: Evidence for a serial bottleneck in lexical access
title_short Visual word recognition: Evidence for a serial bottleneck in lexical access
title_sort visual word recognition: evidence for a serial bottleneck in lexical access
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7297702/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31832892
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01916-z
work_keys_str_mv AT whitealexl visualwordrecognitionevidenceforaserialbottleneckinlexicalaccess
AT palmerjohn visualwordrecognitionevidenceforaserialbottleneckinlexicalaccess
AT boyntongeoffreym visualwordrecognitionevidenceforaserialbottleneckinlexicalaccess