Abstract
Open-bigram and spatial-coding schemes provide different accounts of how letter position is encoded by the brain during visual word recognition. Open-bigram coding involves an explicit representation of order based on letter pairs, while spatial coding involves a comparison function operating over representations of individual letters. We identify a set of priming conditions (subset primes and reversed interior primes) for which the two types of coding schemes give opposing predictions, hence providing the opportunity for strong scientific inference. Experimental results are consistent with the open-bigram account, and inconsistent with the spatial-coding scheme.
References
(2004). Underlying principles of visual shape selectivity in posterior inferortemporal cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 880–886.
(1999). The self-organizing lexical acquisition and recognition (spatial-coding) model of visual word recognition (Doctoral Dissertation). University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
(2010). The spatial coding model of visual word identification. Psychological Review, 117, 713–758.
(2004). What do letter migration errors reveal about letter position coding in visual word recognition? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 923–941.
(2006). Contrasting five different theories of letter-position coding: Evidence from orthographic similarity effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 535–557.
(2005). The neural code for written words: A proposal. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 335–341.
(2011). How to say “no” to a nonword: Further explorations of the lexical decision task. Manuscript submitted for publication.
(2008). The overlap model: A model of letter-position coding. Psychological Review, 115, 577–600.
(1992). Orthographic neighborhoods and visual word recognition. In , Orthography, phonology, morphology and meaning. Amsterdam: North Holland.
(2008). Cracking the orthographic code: An introduction. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 1–35.
(2006). Letter position information and printed word perception: The relative-position priming constraint. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 865–884.
(2003). Modeling letter position coding in printed word perception. In , The mental lexicon (pp. 1–24). New York: Nova Science Publishers.
(2004). Does the huamn mnid raed words as a wlohe? Trends in Cognitive Science, 8, 58–59.
(1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 1. An account of the basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375–407.
(2004). Lexique 2: A new French lexical database. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 516–524.
(2010). A stimulus sampling theory of letter identity and order. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 254–271.
(2003). Does jugde activate COURT? Transposed-letter similarity effects in masked associative priming. Memory & Cognition, 31, 829–841.
(2004). Can CANISO activate CASINO? Transposed-letter similarity effects with nonadjacent letter positions. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 231–246.
(1999). The role of letter identity and letter position orthographic priming. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 691–706.
(1964). Strong inference. Science, 146, 347–353.
(2004). Letter position coding in printed word perception: Effects of repeated and transposed letters. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19, 333–367.
(2001). Shared neighborhood effects in masked orthographic priming. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 96–101.
(2001). How the brain encodes the order of letters in a printed word: The SERIOL model and selective literature review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 221–243.
(2004). Investigations into the neural basis of structured representations (Doctoral Dissertation). University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.
(2008). A comparison of the SERIOL and spatial-coding theories of letter-position encoding. Brain and Language, 107, 170–178.
(2005). Letter-position encoding and dyslexia. Journal of Research in Reading, 28, 274–301.
(2008). Moving beyond Coltheart’s N: A new measure of orthographic similarity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 971–979.
