区分品牌名称和普通词汇的视觉相似性效应

Q1 Psychology Journal of Cognition Pub Date : 2024-08-28 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.5334/joc.397
Francisco Rocabado, Melanie Labusch, Manuel Perea, Jon Andoni Duñabeitia
{"title":"区分品牌名称和普通词汇的视觉相似性效应","authors":"Francisco Rocabado, Melanie Labusch, Manuel Perea, Jon Andoni Duñabeitia","doi":"10.5334/joc.397","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Abstractionist models of visual word recognition can easily accommodate the absence of visual similarity effects in misspelled common words (e.g., <i>viotin</i> vs. <i>viocin</i>) during lexical decision tasks. However, these models fail to account for the sizable effects of visual similarity observed in misspelled brand names (e.g., <i>anazon</i> produces longer responses and more errors than <i>atazon</i>). Importantly, this dissociation has only been reported in separate experiments. Thus, a crucial experiment is necessary to simultaneously examine the role of visual similarity with misspelled common words and brand names. In the current experiment, participants performed a lexical decision task using both brand names and common words. Nonword foils were created by replacing visually similar letters (e.g., <i>anazon</i> [baseword: <i>amazon</i>], <i>anarilllo</i> [amarillo, yellow]) or visually dissimilar letters (e.g., <i>atazon, atarillo</i>). Results showed sizeable visual letter similarity effects for misspelled brand names in response times and percent error. Critically, these effects were absent for misspelled common words. The pervasiveness of visual similarity effects for misspelled brand names, even in the presence of common words, challenges purely abstractionist accounts of visual word recognition. Instead, these findings support instance-based and weakly abstractionist theories, suggesting that episodic traces in the mental lexicon may retain perceptual information, particularly when words are repeatedly presented in a similar format.</p>","PeriodicalId":32728,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cognition","volume":"7 1","pages":"67"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11363898/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dissociating the Effects of Visual Similarity for Brand Names and Common Words.\",\"authors\":\"Francisco Rocabado, Melanie Labusch, Manuel Perea, Jon Andoni Duñabeitia\",\"doi\":\"10.5334/joc.397\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Abstractionist models of visual word recognition can easily accommodate the absence of visual similarity effects in misspelled common words (e.g., <i>viotin</i> vs. <i>viocin</i>) during lexical decision tasks. However, these models fail to account for the sizable effects of visual similarity observed in misspelled brand names (e.g., <i>anazon</i> produces longer responses and more errors than <i>atazon</i>). Importantly, this dissociation has only been reported in separate experiments. Thus, a crucial experiment is necessary to simultaneously examine the role of visual similarity with misspelled common words and brand names. In the current experiment, participants performed a lexical decision task using both brand names and common words. Nonword foils were created by replacing visually similar letters (e.g., <i>anazon</i> [baseword: <i>amazon</i>], <i>anarilllo</i> [amarillo, yellow]) or visually dissimilar letters (e.g., <i>atazon, atarillo</i>). Results showed sizeable visual letter similarity effects for misspelled brand names in response times and percent error. Critically, these effects were absent for misspelled common words. The pervasiveness of visual similarity effects for misspelled brand names, even in the presence of common words, challenges purely abstractionist accounts of visual word recognition. Instead, these findings support instance-based and weakly abstractionist theories, suggesting that episodic traces in the mental lexicon may retain perceptual information, particularly when words are repeatedly presented in a similar format.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":32728,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cognition\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"67\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11363898/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.397\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Psychology\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.397","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

视觉单词识别的抽象主义模型可以很容易地解释在词汇决策任务中,拼写错误的普通单词(如 viotin 与 viocin)不存在视觉相似性效应。然而,这些模型却无法解释在拼写错误的品牌名称中观察到的显著的视觉相似性效应(例如,anazon 比 atazon 产生更长的反应时间和更多的错误)。重要的是,这种分离只在单独的实验中被报道过。因此,有必要进行一项重要实验,以同时研究视觉相似性在拼写错误的普通词和品牌名称中的作用。在本实验中,受试者同时使用品牌名称和普通词语进行词汇决策任务。通过替换视觉上相似的字母(如 anazon [基词:amazon]、anarilllo [amarillo,黄色])或视觉上不相似的字母(如 atazon、atarillo)来创建非词衬托。结果表明,对于拼写错误的品牌名称,视觉字母相似性在反应时间和错误率上都有相当大的影响。重要的是,拼写错误的普通单词不存在这些效应。即使在有普通单词的情况下,拼写错误的品牌名称也普遍存在视觉相似性效应,这对纯粹抽象主义的视觉单词识别方法提出了挑战。相反,这些发现支持基于实例和弱抽象主义的理论,表明心理词典中的历时性痕迹可能会保留知觉信息,尤其是当单词以类似格式重复出现时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Dissociating the Effects of Visual Similarity for Brand Names and Common Words.

Abstractionist models of visual word recognition can easily accommodate the absence of visual similarity effects in misspelled common words (e.g., viotin vs. viocin) during lexical decision tasks. However, these models fail to account for the sizable effects of visual similarity observed in misspelled brand names (e.g., anazon produces longer responses and more errors than atazon). Importantly, this dissociation has only been reported in separate experiments. Thus, a crucial experiment is necessary to simultaneously examine the role of visual similarity with misspelled common words and brand names. In the current experiment, participants performed a lexical decision task using both brand names and common words. Nonword foils were created by replacing visually similar letters (e.g., anazon [baseword: amazon], anarilllo [amarillo, yellow]) or visually dissimilar letters (e.g., atazon, atarillo). Results showed sizeable visual letter similarity effects for misspelled brand names in response times and percent error. Critically, these effects were absent for misspelled common words. The pervasiveness of visual similarity effects for misspelled brand names, even in the presence of common words, challenges purely abstractionist accounts of visual word recognition. Instead, these findings support instance-based and weakly abstractionist theories, suggesting that episodic traces in the mental lexicon may retain perceptual information, particularly when words are repeatedly presented in a similar format.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Cognition
Journal of Cognition Psychology-Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
43
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Long-term Contingency Learning Depends on Contingency Awareness. I am Once Again Asking for Your Attention: A Replication of Feature-Based Attention Modulations of Binding Effects with Picture Stimuli. Implicit Learning of Parity and Magnitude Associations with Number Color. Exploring Inhibitory Control Processes in Highly Superior Autobiographical Memory (HSAM): A Single Case Study. Readiness for Perception and Action: Towards a More Mechanistic Understanding of Phasic Alertness.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1