Rëâdīńg wõrdš wîth ōrńåmêńtš: is there a cost?
IntroductionRecent research has reported that adding non-existent diacritical marks to a word produces a minimal reading cost compared to the intact word. Here we examined whether this minimal reading cost is due to: (1) the resilience of letter detectors to the perceptual noise (i.e., the cost shou...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2023-04-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Psychology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1168471/full |
| _version_ | 1797838643430162432 |
|---|---|
| author | Jon Andoni Duñabeitia Jon Andoni Duñabeitia Manuel Perea Manuel Perea Melanie Labusch Melanie Labusch |
| author_facet | Jon Andoni Duñabeitia Jon Andoni Duñabeitia Manuel Perea Manuel Perea Melanie Labusch Melanie Labusch |
| author_sort | Jon Andoni Duñabeitia |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | IntroductionRecent research has reported that adding non-existent diacritical marks to a word produces a minimal reading cost compared to the intact word. Here we examined whether this minimal reading cost is due to: (1) the resilience of letter detectors to the perceptual noise (i.e., the cost should be small and comparable for words and nonwords) or (2) top-down lexical processes that normalize the percept for words (i.e., the cost would be larger for nonwords).MethodsWe designed a letter detection experiment in which a target stimulus (either a word or a nonword) was presented intact or with extra non-existent diacritics [e.g., amigo (friend) vs. ãmîgô; agimo vs. ãgîmô]. Participants had to decide which of two letters was in the stimulus (e.g., A vs. U).ResultsAlthough the task involved lexical processing, with responses being faster and more accurate for words compared to nonwords, we found only a minimal advantage in error rates for intact stimuli versus those with non-existent diacritics. This advantage was similar for both words and nonwords.DiscussionThe letter detectors in the word recognition system appear to be resilient to non-existent diacritics without the need for feedback from higher levels of processing. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-09T15:45:14Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-697282942ea64bf8926b1e1ba6ed1688 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1664-1078 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-09T15:45:14Z |
| publishDate | 2023-04-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Psychology |
| spelling | doaj.art-697282942ea64bf8926b1e1ba6ed16882023-04-27T04:34:04ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Psychology1664-10782023-04-011410.3389/fpsyg.2023.11684711168471Rëâdīńg wõrdš wîth ōrńåmêńtš: is there a cost?Jon Andoni Duñabeitia0Jon Andoni Duñabeitia1Manuel Perea2Manuel Perea3Melanie Labusch4Melanie Labusch5Centro de Investigación Nebrija en Cognición (CINC), Universidad Antonio de Nebrija, Madrid, SpainDepartment of Languages and Culture, The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, NorwayCentro de Investigación Nebrija en Cognición (CINC), Universidad Antonio de Nebrija, Madrid, SpainDepartamento de Metodología and ERI-Lectura, Universitat de València, Valencia, SpainCentro de Investigación Nebrija en Cognición (CINC), Universidad Antonio de Nebrija, Madrid, SpainDepartamento de Metodología and ERI-Lectura, Universitat de València, Valencia, SpainIntroductionRecent research has reported that adding non-existent diacritical marks to a word produces a minimal reading cost compared to the intact word. Here we examined whether this minimal reading cost is due to: (1) the resilience of letter detectors to the perceptual noise (i.e., the cost should be small and comparable for words and nonwords) or (2) top-down lexical processes that normalize the percept for words (i.e., the cost would be larger for nonwords).MethodsWe designed a letter detection experiment in which a target stimulus (either a word or a nonword) was presented intact or with extra non-existent diacritics [e.g., amigo (friend) vs. ãmîgô; agimo vs. ãgîmô]. Participants had to decide which of two letters was in the stimulus (e.g., A vs. U).ResultsAlthough the task involved lexical processing, with responses being faster and more accurate for words compared to nonwords, we found only a minimal advantage in error rates for intact stimuli versus those with non-existent diacritics. This advantage was similar for both words and nonwords.DiscussionThe letter detectors in the word recognition system appear to be resilient to non-existent diacritics without the need for feedback from higher levels of processing.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1168471/fullword recognitiondiacriticsword superiority effectreadingtext clarity |
| spellingShingle | Jon Andoni Duñabeitia Jon Andoni Duñabeitia Manuel Perea Manuel Perea Melanie Labusch Melanie Labusch Rëâdīńg wõrdš wîth ōrńåmêńtš: is there a cost? Frontiers in Psychology word recognition diacritics word superiority effect reading text clarity |
| title | Rëâdīńg wõrdš wîth ōrńåmêńtš: is there a cost? |
| title_full | Rëâdīńg wõrdš wîth ōrńåmêńtš: is there a cost? |
| title_fullStr | Rëâdīńg wõrdš wîth ōrńåmêńtš: is there a cost? |
| title_full_unstemmed | Rëâdīńg wõrdš wîth ōrńåmêńtš: is there a cost? |
| title_short | Rëâdīńg wõrdš wîth ōrńåmêńtš: is there a cost? |
| title_sort | reading words with ornaments is there a cost |
| topic | word recognition diacritics word superiority effect reading text clarity |
| url | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1168471/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT jonandonidunabeitia readingwordswithornamentsisthereacost AT jonandonidunabeitia readingwordswithornamentsisthereacost AT manuelperea readingwordswithornamentsisthereacost AT manuelperea readingwordswithornamentsisthereacost AT melanielabusch readingwordswithornamentsisthereacost AT melanielabusch readingwordswithornamentsisthereacost |