{"title":"Readers encode absolute letter positions","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105960","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Reading research has long been concerned with the question of whether the reading brain accesses lexical representations via absolute or relative letter position information. In recent years, important results have been obtained with the flanker lexical decision task. Studies have shown faster decisions about target words (e.g., ‘rock’) when flanked by related letters (‘ro rock ck’) than unrelated letters (‘st rock ep')—and crucially, equal facilitation upon switching flanker positions (‘ck rock ro'), pointing to relative rather than absolute letter position coding. Yet, a later study employing longer targets and flankers yielded detrimental effects of switching flanker positions. In order to get a better grasp on the equivocal evidence thus far, here we carried out an extensive test of flanker relatedness and position effects, using various target and flanker lengths, all within a single experiment. We observed a clear reduction of flanker relatedness effects upon switching flanker positions, and this held true across target and flanker lengths. The present results unambiguously suggest that lexical access is driven by absolute letter position information, and furthermore, are accurately predicted by the recent PONG model (<span><span>Snell, 2024b</span></span>).</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48455,"journal":{"name":"Cognition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027724002464/pdfft?md5=657cde790cc5c0a8516adcb284016d6c&pid=1-s2.0-S0010027724002464-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027724002464","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Reading research has long been concerned with the question of whether the reading brain accesses lexical representations via absolute or relative letter position information. In recent years, important results have been obtained with the flanker lexical decision task. Studies have shown faster decisions about target words (e.g., ‘rock’) when flanked by related letters (‘ro rock ck’) than unrelated letters (‘st rock ep')—and crucially, equal facilitation upon switching flanker positions (‘ck rock ro'), pointing to relative rather than absolute letter position coding. Yet, a later study employing longer targets and flankers yielded detrimental effects of switching flanker positions. In order to get a better grasp on the equivocal evidence thus far, here we carried out an extensive test of flanker relatedness and position effects, using various target and flanker lengths, all within a single experiment. We observed a clear reduction of flanker relatedness effects upon switching flanker positions, and this held true across target and flanker lengths. The present results unambiguously suggest that lexical access is driven by absolute letter position information, and furthermore, are accurately predicted by the recent PONG model (Snell, 2024b).
长期以来,阅读研究一直关注阅读大脑是通过绝对还是相对字母位置信息来获取词汇表征的问题。近年来,侧翼词汇决策任务取得了重要成果。研究表明,当目标词(如 "rock")的侧翼是相关字母("ro rock ck")时,其决策速度要快于非相关字母("st rock ep")--更关键的是,当侧翼位置发生变化时("ck rock ro"),其决策速度也会发生变化,这表明字母位置编码是相对的,而不是绝对的。然而,后来一项使用较长目标和侧翼词的研究却发现,切换侧翼词位置会产生不利影响。为了更好地掌握迄今为止模棱两可的证据,我们在这里对侧翼相关性和位置效应进行了一次广泛的测试,在一次实验中使用了不同长度的目标和侧翼。我们观察到,在转换侧翼者位置时,侧翼者相关性效应明显减弱,而且在不同的目标和侧翼者长度上都是如此。本实验结果明确地表明,词性的获取是由绝对字母位置信息驱动的,而且,最近的 PONG 模型(Snell,2024b)也对此进行了准确的预测。
期刊介绍:
Cognition is an international journal that publishes theoretical and experimental papers on the study of the mind. It covers a wide variety of subjects concerning all the different aspects of cognition, ranging from biological and experimental studies to formal analysis. Contributions from the fields of psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, computer science, mathematics, ethology and philosophy are welcome in this journal provided that they have some bearing on the functioning of the mind. In addition, the journal serves as a forum for discussion of social and political aspects of cognitive science.