Explore the vast range of titles available.

Listeners resolve ambiguities in speech perception using multiple sources, including non-local or distal speech rate (i.e., the speech rate of material surrounding a particular region). The ability to resolve ambiguities is particularly important for the perception of casual, everyday productions, which are often produced using phonetically reduced forms. Here, we examine whether the distal speech rate effect is specific to a lexical class of words and/or to particular lexical or phonological contexts. In Experiment 1 , we examined whether distal speech rate influenced perception of phonologically similar content words differing in number of syllables (e.g., form / forum ). In Experiment 2, we used both transcription and word-monitoring tasks to examine whether distal speech rate influenced perception of a reduced vowel, causing lexical reorganization (e.g., cease , see us ). Distal speech rate influenced perception of lexical content in both experiments. This demonstrates that distal rate influences perception of a lexical class other than function words and affects perception in a variety of phonological and lexical contexts. These results support a view that distal speech rate is a pervasive source of information with far-reaching consequences for perception of lexical content and word segmentation.

Skilled readers sometimes fail to notice seemingly obvious errors in text, such as the repetition or omission of a function word or the transposition of two words, suggesting that linguistic knowledge can override bottom-up input at either a perceptual or postperceptual level. The present study investigates the role of this top-down process of error correction in natural reading of extended texts. In previous research, critical sentences have been presented one at a time, and subjects were explicitly tasked with detecting errors. In the present study, each participant read a full newspaper article or pair of articles, with their comprehension tested by multiple choice questions. As a secondary task, participants were also instructed that they should make a mouse click on any errors in the text, without any instruction as to the frequency or nature of any such errors. Each article contained nine intentionally inserted errors involving function words: three repetitions, three omissions, and three transpositions. After removing subjects who did not click on the text at all (leaving n  = 165), the median subject made seven clicks, but detected only one of the nine inserted errors. Neither error type nor article type (highly professional vs. amateur) clearly modulated the rate of error detection, though subjects clicked more often overall on the amateur articles. We conclude that previous research has dramatically underestimated the rate at which readers fail to notice these function word errors; in natural reading, they are noticed only rarely. No existing reading model can account for this phenomenon.

Misspellings in sentences are usually easy to understand by readers due to top–down influences. Although top–down processing allows for fluent reading of misspelled items, the nature of their representations in memory is not known. If representations of misspellings are distinct from representations of correctly spelled words, their influence should be seen in later recognition decisions. In this set of experiments, participants read words and misspellings embedded in sentences and were later given a recognition test. The sentences contained semantically biased or neutral contexts. In Experiment 1, misspellings were created by removing a single letter (e.g., drveway ). In Experiment 2, the recognition items probes were presented in uppercase letters (e.g., DRVEWAY ) to reduce the visual similarity between study and test items. In Experiment 3, the misspellings were created by substituting visually similar letters (e.g., driweway ). In contrast to the previous experiments, in Experiment 4, participants were explicitly told about the memory test to see how response strategies affect performance. Overall, the results indicate that people retain surface feature information about misspellings which seem to inform their memory judgments, and that the processing of this information cannot be strategically controlled.

Reading is a highly complex skill that is prerequisite to success in many societies in which a great deal of information is communicated in written form. Since the 1970s, much has been learned about the reading process from research by cognitive psychologists. This book summarizes that important work and puts it into a coherent framework. The book’s central theme is how readers go about extracting information from the printed page and comprehending the text. Like its predecessor, this thoroughly updated 2nd Edition encompasses all aspects of the psychology of reading with chapters on writing systems, word recognition, the work of the eyes during reading, inner speech, sentence processing, discourse processing, learning to read, dyslexia, individual differences and speed reading. Psychology of Reading, 2 nd Edition , is essential reading for undergraduates, graduates, and researchers in cognitive psychology and could be used as a core textbook on courses on the psychology of reading and related topics. In addition, the clear writing style makes the book accessible to people without a background in psychology but who have a personal or professional interest in the process of reading. Keith Rayner is the Atkinson Professor of Psychology at the University of California, San Diego and Emeritus Distinguished University Professor at the University of Massachusetts.　 He has published widely on topics related to reading, eye movements, and language processing. Alexander Pollatsek is Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Research Professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.　 His primary research interests are in reading, word recognition, scene perception, and driving behavior.　 He has published widely in each area. Jane Ashby is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at Central Michigan University. Her primary interests are in skilled reading, phonological processing, dyslexia, and reading development. Charles Clifton, Jr is Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Research Professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.　 He is primarily interested in psycholinguistics and has published numerous papers dealing with linguistic processing, parsing, and syntactic ambiguity. Preface. Part 1. Background Information. 1. Introduction and Preliminary Information. 2. Writing Systems. 3. Word Perception I: Some Basic Issues and Methods. Part 2. Skilled Reading of Text. 4. The Work of the Eyes. 5. Word Perception II: Word Identification in Text. 6. A Model of Eye Movements in Reading. Part 3. Understanding Text. 7. Inner Speech. 8. Words and Sentences. 9. Comprehension of Discourse. Part 4. Beginning Reading, Reading Disability, Individual Differences. 10. Stages of Reading Development. 11. Learning to Read. 12. Reading Disorders. 13. Speed Reading, Proofreading, and Individual Differences. 14. Overview. \"I don’t think it’s possible to overstate the importance of this book. It’s written by some of the very best-known and respected researchers in the field who, to a very large degree, have defined the field itself. In short, reading research would not have been the same without these authors, and to the present day they’re still amongst the most prominent scholars in the world.\" -Steven Frisson, Ph.D., University of Birmingham, UK \"I absolutely loved reading this book. The level of detail and analysis provided in several of the chapters was exceptional. In fact, given the attention to detail, and the continual use of presenting data followed by argument/criticism to build a position, results in a book that will be valuable at many levels.\" -Edward O’Brien, Ph.D., University of New Hampshire, US \"The original Psychology of Reading by Rayner and Pollatsek - of which this current book is a thoroughly revised and updated version - has often been described as a seminal book. Only too frequently this term is used to describe books which have received considerable attention in the field but in hindsight fail to meet the criterion for using that specific, powerful epithet . . . The current book is a rightful heir to the throne of the [first edition].\" -Denis Drieghe, Ph.D., University of Southampton, UK

We aimed at identifying plurimodal large-scale networks for producing, listening to and reading word lists based on the combined analyses of task-induced activation and resting-state intrinsic connectivity in 144 healthy right-handers. In the first step, we identified the regions in each hemisphere showing joint activation and joint asymmetry during the three tasks. In the left hemisphere, 14 homotopic regions of interest (hROIs) located in the left Rolandic sulcus, precentral gyrus, cingulate gyrus, cuneus and inferior supramarginal gyrus (SMG) met this criterion, and 7 hROIs located in the right hemisphere were located in the preSMA, medial superior frontal gyrus, precuneus and superior temporal sulcus (STS). In a second step, we calculated the BOLD temporal correlations across these 21 hROIs at rest and conducted a hierarchical clustering analysis to unravel their network organization. Two networks were identified, including the WORD-LIST_CORE network that aggregated 14 motor, premotor and phonemic areas in the left hemisphere plus the right STS that corresponded to the posterior human voice area (pHVA). The present results revealed that word-list processing is based on left articulatory and storage areas supporting the action–perception cycle common not only to production and listening but also to reading. The inclusion of the right pHVA acting as a prosodic integrative area highlights the importance of prosody in the three modalities and reveals an intertwining across hemispheres between prosodic (pHVA) and phonemic (left SMG) processing. These results are consistent with the motor theory of speech postulating that articulatory gestures are the central motor units on which word perception, production, and reading develop and act together.

It is widely assumed that subliminal word priming is case insensitive and that a short SOA (< 100 ms) is required to observe any effects. Here we attempted to replicate results from an influential study with the inclusion of a longer SOA to re-examine these assumptions. Participants performed a semantic categorisation task on visible word targets that were preceded either 64 or 192 ms by a subliminal prime. The prime and target were either the same or different word and could appear in the same or different case. We confirmed the presence of subliminal word priming (same word < different word reaction times). The word priming effect did not differ when case was the same or different, which supports case insensitive word priming. However, there was a general facilitation effect driven by case (same case < different case). Finally, there was a significant difference between the two SOA conditions; however, there were no interactions between SOA and any other factor, demonstrating that subliminal priming did not differ between short and long SOAs. The results demonstrate that word priming is case insensitive but that there is nevertheless an overall facilitation when words, regardless if they are repeated or not, are presented in the same case. This facilitation in case may reflect modularity in the low-level processing of the visual characteristics of words.

Two eye movement experiments investigated intraword spacing (the space between letters within words) and interword spacing (the space between words) to explore the influence these variables have on eye movement control during reading. Both variables are important factors in determining the optimal use of space in a line of text, and fonts differ widely in how they employ these spaces. Prior research suggests that the proximity of flanking letters influences the identification of a central letter via lateral inhibition or crowding. If so, decrements in intraword spacing may produce inhibition in word processing. Still other research suggests that increases in intraword spacing can disrupt the integrity of word units. In English, interword spacing has a large influence on word segmentation and is important for saccade target selection. The results indicate an interplay between intra- and interword spacing that influences a font’s readability. Additionally, these studies highlight the importance of word segmentation processes and have implications for the nature of lexical processing (serial vs. parallel).

Recent research has suggested that words presented with a slightly increased interletter spacing are identified faster than words presented with the default spacing settings (i.e., is faster to identify than ; see Perea, Moret-Tatay, & Gomez, 2011 ). To examine the nature of the effect of interletter spacing in visual-word recognition (i.e., affecting encoding processes vs. quality of information), we fitted Ratcliff’s ( 1978 ) diffusion model to a lexical decision experiment in which we manipulated a range of five interletter spacings (from condensed [–0.5] to expanded [1.5]). The results showed an effect of interletter spacing on latencies to word stimuli, which reflected a linear decreasing trend: Words presented with a more expanded interletter spacing were identified more rapidly than those with a narrower spacing. Fits from the diffusion model revealed that interletter spacing produces small changes in the encoding process rather than changes in the quality of lexical information. This finding opens a new window of opportunities to examine the role of interletter spacing in more applied settings.

Previous eye-movement studies have indicated that people tend to skip extremely high-frequency words in sentence reading, such as “the” in English and “的/de” in Chinese. Two alternative hypotheses have been proposed to explain how this frequent skipping happens in Chinese reading: one assumes that skipping happens when the preview has been fully identified at the word level (word-based skipping); the other assumes that skipping happens whenever the preview character is easy to identify regardless of whether lexical processing has been completed or not (character-based skipping). Using the gaze-contingent display change paradigm, we examined the two hypotheses by substituting the preview of the third character of a four-character Chinese word with the high-frequency Chinese character “的/de”, which should disrupt the ongoing word-level processing. The character-based skipping hypothesis predicts that this manipulation will enhance the skipping probability of the target character (i.e., the third character of the target word), because the character “的/de” has much higher character frequency than the original character. The word-based skipping hypothesis instead predicts a reduction of the skipping probability of the target character because the presence of the character “的/de” is lexically infelicitous at word level. The results supported the character-based skipping hypothesis, indicating that in Chinese reading the decision of skipping a character can be made before integrating it into a word.