Krueger Lester E, Shapiro Ronald G
Ohio State U, Human Performance Ctr.
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1979 Nov;5(4):657-673. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.5.4.657.
Letter detection typically is faster and more accurate in words than nonwords. Experiments 1, 2, and 3 tested the robustness of the word superiority effect using rapid serial visual presentation of words or nonwords. Letter detection was better in words even when the six-letter items were presented one after the other at rapid rates, up to about 10 items per second. At yet faster rates, however, the word advantage vanished. Experiments 4 and 5 tested whether word context aids feature extraction or the subsequent interpretation stage. In Experiment 4, subjects had to discriminate whether a mutilated A or mutilated E was present; in Experiment 5, subjects had merely to decide whether a mutilated A was present. Mutilation discrimination in Experiment 4 was better on words than nonwords; once a mutilation was detected, the word context revealed whether it was an A or an E. Mutilation detection in Experiment 5 did not differ between words and nonwords, though on words there was a response bias toward not reporting a mutilation as present. The results indicate that familiarity aids the interpretation process alone: Letters are not seen any more clearly or rapidly in words, but are simply filled in or inferred more accurately from the familiar context.
字母识别在真实词汇中通常比在非词中更快且更准确。实验1、2和3使用单词或非词的快速序列视觉呈现来测试单词优势效应的稳健性。即使六个字母的项目以每秒约10个项目的快速速率依次呈现,字母识别在真实词汇中也更好。然而,在更快的速率下,单词优势消失了。实验4和5测试了单词上下文是否有助于特征提取或后续的解释阶段。在实验4中,受试者必须辨别是否存在残缺的A或残缺的E;在实验5中,受试者只需判断是否存在残缺的A。实验4中的残缺辨别在真实词汇中比在非词中更好;一旦检测到残缺,单词上下文就能揭示它是A还是E。实验5中的残缺检测在真实词汇和非词之间没有差异,不过在真实词汇中存在一种不报告残缺存在的反应偏差。结果表明,熟悉度仅有助于解释过程:在真实词汇中字母并不会被看得更清楚或更快,只是从熟悉的上下文中能更准确地补充或推断出来。