Interference in character processing reflects common perceptual expertise across writing systems.
Perceptual expertise, even within the visual domain, can take many forms, depending on the goals of the practiced task and the visual information available to support performance. Given the same goals, expertise for different categories can recruit common perceptual resources, which could lead to interference during concurrent processing. We measured whether irrelevant characters of one writing system produce interference during visual search for characters of another writing system, as a function of expertise. Chinese-English bilinguals and English readers searched for target Roman letters among other distractors in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) sequence. Chinese character distractors interfered with Roman letter search more than pseudoletter distractors, only for bilingual readers, suggesting a common perceptual bottleneck for Roman and Chinese processing in experts with both domains. We ruled out an explanation at the level of phonetic codes, by showing that concurrent verbal rehearsal has no effect on the magnitude of such interference. These findings converge with results showing competition between faces and cars in car experts to suggest that different domains of expertise that overlap in their cortical representations also possess a common perceptual bottleneck.
Department of Psychology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong. alancnwong@gmail.com
Alan C-N
AC
Wong
Zhiyi
Z
Qu
Rankin W
RW
McGugin
Isabel
I
Gauthier
D004192:Discrimination, Psychological / Q000502:physiology*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual / Q000502:physiology*; D010775:Photic Stimulation; D011930:Reaction Time; D021641:Recognition, Psychology / Q000502:physiology*; D014956:Writing; D055815:Young Adult
Nat Neurosci. 2003 Apr;6(4):428-32
12627167
Psychol Sci. 2000 May;11(3):196-201
11273403
J Neurosci. 2010 Jul 21;30(29):9869-76
20660269
Hum Brain Mapp. 2005 May;25(1):92-104
15846818
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2011 Feb;73(2):309-17
21264705
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2005 Dec;5(4):452-66
16541814
Nat Neurosci. 2000 Feb;3(2):191-7
10649576
Psychol Sci. 2005 Feb;16(2):145-51
15686581
Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):433-6
9176952
Cogn Psychol. 2004 Jan;48(1):95-126
14654037
Cognition. 2010 Dec;117(3):355-60
20933227
Psychol Sci. 2009 Sep;20(9):1108-17
19694980
Cogn Neuropsychol. 2009 Feb;26(1):91-110
18830859
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1982 Apr;8(2):194-214
6461717
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1995 Jun;21(3):451-68
7790827
Perception. 2006;35(4):541-59
16700295
J Cogn Neurosci. 2008 Oct;20(10):1878-91
18370600
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2002 Apr;28(2):431-46
11999864
Trends Cogn Sci. 2006 Apr;10(4):159-66
16516534
Neuron. 2002 Apr 25;34(3):479-90
11988177
Vision Res. 2005 Feb;45(4):431-48
15610748
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 May 22;104(21):9087-92
17502592
J Cogn Neurosci. 2010 Apr;22(4):695-713
19320551
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2001 Sep;130(3):534-43
11561926
J Cogn Neurosci. 2006 Sep;18(9):1453-65
16989547
Neuropsychologia. 2006;44(14):2937-49
16920164
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2005 Sep;5(3):306-18
16396092
PLoS One. 2009 Dec 22;4(12):e8405
20027229
J Exp Psychol. 1969 Jan;79(1):1-16
5779622
Cogn Neuropsychol. 2009 Feb;26(1):111-27
18759193
J Cogn Neurosci. 2007 Mar;19(3):543-55
17335400
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Oct 5;101(40):14521-6
15448209
Cogn Psychol. 1980 Jan;12(1):97-136
7351125