Show simple item record

Processes in word recognition

dc.contributor.authorWheeler, Daniel D.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2006-04-17T15:13:50Z
dc.date.available2006-04-17T15:13:50Z
dc.date.issued1970-01en_US
dc.identifier.citationWheeler, Daniel D. (1970/01)."Processes in word recognition." Cognitive Psychology 1(1): 59-85. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/32833>en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WCR-4D5X9C6-13/2/d61f7148724f8ef4947e99b071bc95daen_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/32833
dc.description.abstractFive hypotheses were proposed and tested to account for Reicher's (1968) finding that recognition of letters is more accurate in the context of a meaningful word than alone, even with redundancy controlled by a forced-choice design. All five hypotheses were rejected on the basis of the experimental results. Performance on the forced-choice letter detection task averaged 10% better when the stimuli were four-letter English words than when the stimuli were single letters appearing alone in the visual field.Three classes of models were proposed to account for the experimental results. All three are based on analysis of the task in terms of the extraction of features from the stimuli.en_US
dc.format.extent1684109 bytes
dc.format.extent3118 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.titleProcesses in word recognitionen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPsychologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelSocial Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumUniversity of Texas at Austin, U.S.A.; Mental Health Research Institute, University of Michigan, U.S.A.en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/32833/1/0000208.pdfen_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(70)90005-8en_US
dc.identifier.sourceCognitive Psychologyen_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.