title: Don't words come easy? A psychophysical exploration of word superiority.
abstract: Words are made of letters, and yet sometimes it is easier to identify a word than a single letter. This word superiority effect (WSE) has been observed when written stimuli are presented very briefly or degraded by visual noise. We compare performance with letters and words in three experiments, to explore the extents and limits of the WSE. Using a carefully controlled list of three letter words, we show that a WSE can be revealed in vocal reaction times even to undegraded stimuli. With a novel combination of psychophysics and mathematical modeling, we further show that the typical WSE is specifically reflected in perceptual processing speed: single words are simply processed faster than single letters. Intriguingly, when multiple stimuli are presented simultaneously, letters are perceived more easily than words, and this is reflected both in perceptual processing speed and visual short term memory (VSTM) capacity. So, even if single words come easy, there is a limit to the WSE.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, Center for Visual Cognition, University of Copenhagen Copenhagen, Denmark.
authors.forename: Randi
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Starrfelt
authors.forename: Anders
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Petersen
authors.forename: Signe
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Vangkilde
keywords: Theory of Visual Attention (TVA); reading; visual processing speed; visual short term memory; word processing; word superiority effect
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2004 Mar;21(3):829-39
references.pmid: 15006649
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2001 Jan;108(1):204-56
references.pmid: 11212628
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1982 Jan;89(1):60-94
references.pmid: 7058229
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2011 Jun;15(6):254-62
references.pmid: 21592844
references.citation: Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2005 Dec;5(4):452-66
references.pmid: 16541814
references.citation: Cogn Neuropsychol. 1998 Mar 1;15(1-2):7-51
references.pmid: 28657524
references.citation: Neuropsychologia. 2004;42(11):1504-14
references.pmid: 15246288
references.citation: Cereb Cortex. 2005 Oct;15(10):1469-84
references.pmid: 15689522
references.citation: Brain. 2002 May;125(Pt 5):1054-69
references.pmid: 11960895
references.citation: Behav Neurol. 2013;26(3):167-9
references.pmid: 22713414
references.citation: J Exp Psychol. 1969 Aug;81(2):275-80
references.pmid: 5811803
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 2007 Aug;69(6):1040-50
references.pmid: 18018986
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2005 Apr;112(2):291-328
references.pmid: 15783288
references.citation: Cereb Cortex. 2009 Dec;19(12):2880-90
references.pmid: 19366870
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2004 Feb;15(2):106-11
references.pmid: 14738517
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2011 Jun;15(6):246-53
references.pmid: 21549634
references.citation: Cortex. 2010 Feb;46(2):242-55
references.pmid: 19446802
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1956 Mar;63(2):81-97
references.pmid: 13310704
references.citation: Neuron. 2007 Jul 5;55(1):143-56
references.pmid: 17610823
references.citation: Nature. 2003 Jun 12;423(6941):752-6
references.pmid: 12802334
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1990 Oct;97(4):523-47
references.pmid: 2247540
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2008 Mar 1;40(1):353-66
references.pmid: 18182174
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2004 Feb;8(2):58-9
references.pmid: 15588808
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2009 Feb;35(1):94-107
references.pmid: 19170473
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1995 Nov;57(8):1241-61
references.pmid: 8539099
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1992 May;51(5):473-84
references.pmid: 1594437
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 1994 Mar;22(2):133-44
references.pmid: 8035690
references.citation: Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2011 Dec;218(4):667-80
references.pmid: 21629997
references.citation: Brain. 2000 Feb;123 ( Pt 2):291-307
references.pmid: 10648437