Letter Visibility and the Optimal Viewing Position Effect of Isolated Connected and Un-Connected Letters in Arabic

• Authors: Deia Ganayim
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The present study provides a further exploration of the role of Arabic letter visibility as a possible cause of the Optimal Viewing Position (OVP) effect. We used isolated connected and un-connected Arabic letters of different shapes (basic, initial, medial, final) placed at the center of fixation (Experiment 1) and at various possible positions in isolated presentation (Experiment 2). In order to investigate whether performance in the visual identification task is modulated by letter type, we presented each of the isolated connected and un-connected letter targets in each of the eleven stimulus positions across the array to produce a mean RT (ms) for each of the letter types. Using the initial fixation paradigm enabled us to compare reaction times with correctly identified letter targets appearing in the different possible positions. The findings of the present experiments demonstrated that visual letter recognition is influenced by: (i) the isolated letters’ type (connected, un-connected), as connected letters are easier to recognize than un-connected letters; (ii) isolated letters’ shape (basic, initial, medial, final), as medial and final are harder to recognize than basic and initial letter shapes; (iii) visual field, as reading rates were longer for letter stimuli that were presented in LVF compared to RVF; and (iv) eccentricity, as letter reading rates were correlated with their eccentric placement.

Keywords

EN

Arabic; optimal viewing position; visual recognition; connected; un-connected; isolated; letter

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Psychology of Language and Communication
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 19
• Issue: 3
• Pages: 174-200

Dates

published

2015-12-01

online

2016-05-12

Contributors

author

Deia Ganayim

• The Arab Center for Mind, Brain & Behavior, Sakhnin

References

• Abdelhadi, S., Ibrahim, R., & Eviatar, Z. (2011). Perceptual load in the reading of Arabic: Effects of orthographic visual complexity on detection. Writing Systems Research, 3 (2), 117–127.
• Abd El-Minem, F.M. (1987). Elm al-sarf. Jerusalem: Al-Taufik Press [in Arabic].
• Abu-Rabia, S. (2001). The role of vowels in reading Semitic scripts: Data from Arabic and Hebrew. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 14 (1-2), 39–59.
• Adelman, J.S., Marquis, S.J., & Sabatos-DeVito, M.G. (2010). Letters in words are read simultaneously, not in left-to-right sequence. Psychological Science, 21 (12), 1799–1801.
• Almabruk, A.A.A., Paterson, K.B., McGowan, V.A., & Jordan, T.R. (2011). Evaluating effects of divided hemispheric processing on word recognition in foveal and extrafoveal displays: The evidence from Arabic. PLoS ONE, 6 (4): e18131.
• Al-Muhtaseb, H., Mahmoud, S., & Qahwaji, R. (2009). A novel minimal script for Arabic text recognition databases and benchmarks. International Journal of Circuits, Systems and Signal Processing, 3 (3), 145–153.
• Arguin, M. & Bub, D. (1995). Priming and response selection processes in letter classification and identification tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21 (5), 1199–1219.
• Averbach, E. & Coriell, A.S. (1961). Short-term memory in vision. Bell Labs Technical Journal, 40 (1), 309–328.
• Belaid, A. & Choisy C. (2008). Human Reading Based Strategies for Off-Line Arabic Word Recognition. Arabic and Chinese Handwriting Recognition Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4768, 36–56.
• Bouma, H. (1973). Visual interference in the parafoveal recognition of initial and final letters of words. Vision Research, 13 (4), 767–782.
• Brysbaert, M. (1994). Interhemispheric transfer and the processing of foveally presented stimuli. Behavioral Brain Research, 64 (1-2), 151–161.
• Brysbaert, M. (2004). The importance of interhemispheric transfer for foveal vision: A factor that has been overlooked in theories of visual word recognition and object perception. Brain and Language, 88 (3), 259–267.
• Brysbaert, M. & Nazir, T.A. (2005). Visual constraints in written word recognition: Evidence from the optimal viewing-position effect. Journal of Research in Reading, 28 (3), 216–228.
• Brysbaert, M., Speybroeck, S., & Vanderelst, D. (2009) Is there room for the BBC in the mental lexicon? On the recognition of acronyms. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62 (9), 1832–1842.
• Brysbaert, M., Vitu, F., & Schroyens, W. (1996). The right visual field advantage and the optimal viewing position effect: On the relation between foveal and parafoveal word recognition. Neuropsychology, 10 (3), 385–395.
• Butler, B.E. (1975). Selective attention and target search with brief visual displays. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 27 (3), 467–477.
• Butler, B.E. & Merikle, P.M. (1973). Selective masking and processing strategy. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25 (4), 542–548.
• Carrasco, M., Kinchla, R.A., & Figueroa, J.G. (1988). Visual letter-matching and the time course of visual and acoustic codes. Acta Psychologica, 69 (1), 1–17.
• Carreiras, M., Perea, M., & Abu Mallouh, R. (2012). Priming of abstract letter representations may be universal: The case of Arabic. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 19 (4), 685–690.
• Carreiras, M., Perea, M., Gil-López, C., Mallouh, R.A., & Salillas, E. (2013). Neural correlates of visual versus abstract letter processing in Roman and Arabic scripts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25 (11), 1975–1985.
• Chung, S.T.L., Legge, G.E., & Cheung, S.H. (2004). Letter-recognition and reading speed in peripheral vision benefit from perceptual learning. Vision Research, 44 (7), 695–709.
• Davis, C.J. (2006). Orthographic input coding: A review of behavioural data and current models. In S. Andrews (Ed.), From Inkmarks to Ideas: Current Issues in Lexical Processing (pp. 180–206). Hove: Psychology Press.
• Deutsch, A. & Rayner, K. (1999). Initial fixation location effects in reading Hebrew words. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14 (4), 393–421.
• Ducrot, S. & Pynte, J. (2002). What determines the eyes’ landing position in words? Perception & Psychophysics, 64 (7), 1130–1144.
• Dufor, O. & Rapp, B. (2013). Letter representations in writing: an fMRI adaptation approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 4 (781), 1-14.
• Ellis, A.W. & Brysbaert, M. (2010). Split fovea theory and the role of the two cerebral hemispheres in reading: A review of the evidence. Neuropsychologia, 48 (2), 353–365.
• Estes, W.K., Allmeyer, D.H., & Reder, S.M. (1976). Serial position functions for letter identification at brief and extended exposure durations. Perception & Psychophysics, 19 (1), 1–15.
• Falkenberg, H.K., Rubin, G.S., & Bex, P.J. (2007) Acuity, crowding, reading and fixation stability. Vision Research, 47 (1), 126–135.
• Farid, M. & Grainger, J. (1996). How initial fixation position influences visual word recognition: A comparison of French and Arabic. Brain and Language, 53 (3), 351–368.
• Finkbeiner, M. & Coltheart, M. (2009). Letter recognition: from perception to representation. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 26 (1), 1–6.
• Forster, K.I. (1998). The pros and cons of masked priming. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27 (2), 203–233.
• Geyer, L.H. & DeWald, C.G. (1973). Feature lists and confusion matrices. Perception & Psychophysics, 14 (3), 471–482.
• Gibson, E.J. (1969). Principles of Perceptual Learning and Development. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
• Grainger, J. (2008). Cracking the orthographic code: An introduction. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23 (1), 1–35.
• Grainger, J., Granier, J.P., Farioli, F., Van Assche, E., & van Heuven, W.J. (2006). Letter position information and printed word perception: The relative-position priming constraint. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32 (4), 865–884.
• Grainger, J. & Jacobs, A.M. (1996). Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple read-out model. Psychological Review, 103 (3), 518–565.
• Grainger, J., Rey, A., & Dufau, S. (2008). Letter perception: from pixels to pandemonium. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12 (10), 381–387.
• Grainger, J. & van Heuven, W. (2003). Modeling letter position coding in printed word perception. In P. Bonin (Ed.), The Mental Lexicon (pp. 1–24). New York: Nova Science.
• Haber, R. N., & Standing, L. (1969). Location of errors with a poststimulus indicator. Psychonomic Science, 17 (6), 345–346.
• Hunter, Z.R., Brysbaert, M., & Knecht, S. (2007). Foveal word reading requires interhemispheric communication. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19 (8), 1373–1387.
• Ibrahim, R. & Eviatar, Z. (2009). Language status and hemispheric involvement in reading: Evidence from trilingual Arabic speakers tested in Arabic, Hebrew, and English. Neuropsychology, 23 (2), 240–254.
• Jacobs, A.M., Nazir, T.A., & Heller, O. (1989). Perception of lowercase letters in peripheral vision: A letter discrimination matrix based on saccade latencies. Perception & Psychophysics, 46 (1), 95–102.
• Jordan, T.R. & Paterson, K.B. (2009). Re-evaluating split-fovea processing in word recognition: A critical assessment of recent research. Neuropsychologia, 47 (12), 2341–2353.
• Kajii, N. & Osaka, N. (2000). Optimal viewing position in vertically and horizontally presented Japanese words. Perception & Psychophysics, 62 (6), 1634–1644.
• Keren, G. & Baggen, S. (1981). Recognition models of alphanumeric characters. Perception & Psychophysics, 29 (3), 234–246.
• Kinoshita, S. & Kaplan, L. (2008). Priming of abstract letter identities in the letter match task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61 (12), 1873–1885.
• Kinoshita, S. & Norris, D. (2009). Transposed-letter priming of pre-lexical orthographic representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 35 (1), 1–18.
• Lavidor, M., Ellis, A., Shillcock, R., & Bland, T. (2001). Evaluating a split processing model of visual word recognition: Effects of word length. Cognitive Brain Research, 12 (2), 265–272.
• Lavidor, M., & Walsh, V. (2004). Opinion – The nature of foveal representation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5 (9), 729–735.
• Legge, G.E., Mansfield, J.S., & Chung, S.T.L. (2001). Psychophysics of reading: XX. Linking letter recognition to reading speed in central and peripheral vision. Vision Research, 41 (6), 725–743.
• Legein, C.H. & Bouma, H. (1977). Dyslectic and normally-reading children. I. Exploration of a letter-search test for screening purposes. II. Follow-up and further exploration in 4 weak and 4 normal readers on letter, word and number recognition. Documenta Ophthalmologica, 42 (2), 391–396.
• Lindell, A.K. & Nicholls, M.E.R. (2003). Cortical representation of the fovea: Implications for visual half-field research. Cortex, 39 (1), 111–117.
• Liu, P. & Li, X. (2013). Optimal viewing position effects in the processing of isolated Chinese words. Vision Research, 81, 45–57
• Mahdi, M. (2010). A study of Arabic letter frequency analysis. . Accessed 4 June 2015.
• Martin, C.D., Thierry, G., Démonet, J.F., Roberts, M., & Nazir, T. (2007). ERP evidence for the split fovea theory. Brain Research, 1185, 212–220.
• Marzouki, Y., Meeter, M., & Grainger, J. (2013). Location invariance in masked repetition priming of letters and words. Acta Psychologica, 142 (1), 23–29.
• McClelland, J.L. & Rumelhart, D.E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effect in letter perception. Part I: An account of basic findings. Psychological review, 88 (5), 375–407.
• Merikle, P.M., Coltheart, M., & Lowe, D.G. (1971). On the selective effects of a patterned masking stimulus. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25 (3), 264–279.
• Merikle, P.M., Lowe, D.G., & Coltheart, M. (1971). Familiarity and method of report as determinants of tachistoscopic performance. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25 (2), 167–174.
• Mewhort, D.J.K. & Campbell, A.J. (1978). Processing spatial information and the selective-masking effect. Perception & Psychophysics, 24 (1), 93–101.
• Miller, P. & Vaknin, V. (2012). The involvement of letter names in the silent processing of isolated letters: A developmental Perspective. Memory & Cognition, 40 (8), 1276–1288.
• Miozzo, M. & Caramazza, A. (1998). The varieties of pure alexia: The case of failure to access graphemic representations. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 15 (1-2), 203–238.
• Mycroft, R., Hanley, J.R., & Kay, J. (2002). Preserved access to abstract letter identities despite abolished letter naming in a case of pure alexia. Journal of Neurolinguisitcs, 15 (2), 99–108.
• Nazir, T.A. (1991). On the role of refixations in letter strings: The influence of oculomotor factors. Perception & Psychophysics, 49 (4), 373–389.
• Nazir, T.A., Ben-Boutayab, N., Decoppet, N., Deutsch, A., & Frost, R. (2004). Reading habits, perceptual learning, and recognition of printed words. Brain and Language, 88 (3), 294–311.
• Nazir, T.A., Deutsch, A., Grainger, J., & Frost, R. (2000). The role of early perceptual learning in reading. Abstracts of the Psychonomic Society, 5, 83.
• Nazir, T.A., Heller, D., & Sussmann, C. (1992). Letter visibility and word recognition: The optimal viewing position in printed words. Perception & Psychophysics, 52 (3), 315–328.
• Nazir, T.A., Jacobs, A.M., & O’Regan, J.K. (1998). Letter legibility and visual word recognition. Memory & Cognition, 26 (4), 810–821.
• Paterson, K.B., Jordan, T.R., & Kurtev, S. (2009). Binocular Fixation Disparity in Single Word Displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35 (6), 1961–1968.
• Pelli, D.G., Burns, C.W., Farrell, B., & Moore-Page, D.C. (2006). Feature detection and letter identification. Vision Research, 46 (28), 4646–4674.
• Perfetti, C.A., Cao, F., & Booth, J.R. (2013). Specialization and universals in the development of reading skill: How Chinese research informs a universal science of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17 (1), 5–21.
• Petit, J.-P. & Grainger, J. (2002). Masked partial priming of letter perception. Visual Cognition, 9 (3), 337–353.
• Petit, J.-P., Midgley, K.J., Holcomb, P.J., & Grainger, J. (2006). On the time course of letter perception: A masked priming ERP investigation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13 (4), 674–681.
• Pitchford, N.J., Ledgeway, T., & Masterson, J. (2008). Effect of orthographic processes on letter position encoding. Journal of Research in Reading, 31 (1), 97–116.
• Posner, M.I. & Mitchell, R.F. (1967). Chronometric analysis of classification. Psychological Review, 74 (5), 392–409.
• Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62 (8), 1457–1506.
• Rayner, K., McConkie, G.W., & Zola, D. (1980). Integrating information across eye movements. Cognitive Psychology, 12 (2), 206–226.
• Reilhac, C., Jucla, M., Iannuzzi, S., Valdois, S., & Démonet, J.-F. (2012). Effect of orthographic processes on letter identity and letter-position encoding in dyslexic children. Frontiers in Psychology, 3 (154), 1–11.
• Shillcock, R., Ellison, T.M., & Monaghan, P. (2000). Eye-fixation behavior, lexical storage, and visual word recognition in a split processing model. Psychological Review, 107 (4), 824–851.
• Schoonbaert, S. & Grainger, J. (2004). Letter position coding in printed word perception: Effects of repeated and transposed letters. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19 (3), 333–367.
• Schwantes, F.M. (1978). Stimulus position functions in tachistoscopic identification tasks: Scanning, rehearsal, and order of report. Perception & Psychophysics, 23 (3), 219–226.
• Selfridge, O.G. & Neisser, U. (1960). Pattern recognition by machine. Scientific American, 20, 60–68.
• Selfridge, O.G. (1959). Pandemonium: A paradigm for learning. In D.V. Blake & A.M. Uttley (Eds.), Proceedings of the Symposium on Mechanisation of Thought Processes (pp. 511–529). London: H. M. Stationary Office.
• Solomon, J.A. & Pelli, D.G. (1994). The visual filter mediating letter identification. Nature, 369 (6479), 395–397.
• Stevens, M. & Grainger, J. (2003). Letter visibility and the viewing position effect in visual word recognition. Perception & Psychophysics, 65 (1), 133–151.
• Taouk, M. & Coltheart, M. (2004). The cognitive processes involved in learning to read in Arabic. Reading and Writing, 17 (1-2), 27–57.
• Tydgat, I. & Grainger, J. (2009). Serial position effects in the identification of letters, digits, and symbols. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35 (2), 480–498.
• Van der Haegen, L. & Brysbaert, M. (2011). The mechanisms underlying the interhemispheric integration of information in foveal word recognition: Evidence for transcortical inhibition. Brain and Language, 118 (3), 81–89.
• Van der Haegen, L., Drieghe, D., & Brysbaert, M. (2010). The split fovea theory and the leicester critique: What do the data say? Neuropsychologia, 48 (1), 96–106.
• Vitu, F., Lancelin, D., & d’Unienville, V.M. (2007). A perceptual-economy account for the inverted-optimal viewing position effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33 (5), 1220–1249.
• Whitney, C. (2001). How the brain encodes the order of letters in a printed word: The SERIOL model and selective literature review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8 (2), 221–243.
• Wolford, G. & Hollingsworth, S. (1974). Retinal location and string position as important variables in visual information processing. Perception & Psychophysics, 16 (3), 437–442.
• Wong, Y.K. & Hsiao, J.H. (2012). Reading direction is sufficient to account for the optimal viewing position in reading: The case of music reading. Paper presented at The 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci2012), Sapporo, Japan.

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/plc-2015-0011