Gemma A L Evans, Matthew A Lambon Ralph, Anna M Woollams
Abstract
Most models of reading agree that visual word recognition is underpinned by a highly interactive network in which both bottom-up and top-down processes contribute. What remains unknown is whether evidence of top-down effects upon letter processing are restricted to word-form level information, or whether meaning-level information also plays a role. Here we sought to investigate top-down semantic influences upon letter detection using semantic manipulations of real word imageability and semantic priming, as well as a manipulation of nonword orthographic and phonological composition which varied degree of similarity to real words. A continuous adaptive staircase procedure was used, allowing us to assess the exposure duration needed for accurate letter perception in different stimulus types. Results revealed that in terms of both exposure duration and decision reaction times, words showed an advantage over pseudohomophones and pseudowords, which in turn showed advantages over consonant strings. High imageability words were processed more efficiently than low imageability words, both in terms of the exposure duration required for accurate letter identification and also decision reaction times. The presence of a related as opposed to unrelated semantic prime significantly shortened exposure duration, but also lengthened decision reaction times. This inhibitory semantic priming effect in reaction time was attributed to the interference at the decision stage by stronger activation of the prime letters in the case of related relative to unrelated trials. Taken together, the present results establish for the first time that the semantic dimensions of imageability and semantic priming exert significant effects on letter identification, indicating meaning-level influences on the very earliest stages of written word recognition.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 April 2017.
All research outputs
#17,879,732
of 22,955,959 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,649
of 30,107 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,862
of 310,108 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#459
of 586 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,955,959 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,107 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,108 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 586 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
