CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 141Reading and Literacy DevelopmentNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismVisual perception and processing mechanisms

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Word shape's in poor shape for the race to the lexicon

Paap, Kenneth R., Newsome, Sandra L., Noel, Ronald W.·1984·Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
DOI 10.1037/0096-1523.10.3.413
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Current models of fluent reading often assume that fast and automatic word recognition involves the use of a supraletter feature corresponding to the envelope or shape of the word when it is printed in lowercase. The advantages of mixed case over pure case and of pure lowercase over pure uppercase have often been taken as evidence favoring the word-shape hypothesis. Alternative explanations for these phenomena are offered. Experiment 1 shows that previous demonstrations of word-shape effects during proofreading are better described as individual letter effects. Experiments 2-4 explore the possibility that word shape facilitates lexical access through uncertainty reduction. In all three experiments performance on words with rare shapes is compared to those with common shapes. There were no effects of shape frequency in either tachistoscopic recognition or lexical-decision tasks. This was true regardless of the degree to which the visual shape cue was supplemented by the nonvisual factors of familiarity and expectancy. Possible reasons why fluent readers ignore word shape are discussed within the framework of a model that assumes that automatic word recognition is mediated by the activation of abstract letter identities.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0096-1523.10.3.413

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 32 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–141 of 141

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Paap, K. R., Newsome, S. L., & Noel, R. W.
Affiliations
New Mexico State University (US)
ORCID
Paap, Kenneth R.
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1984
Volume
10
Issue
3
Pages
413-428
ISSN
  • 0096-1523 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1277
DOI
10.1037/0096-1523.10.3.413
OpenAlex
W2033383733
Cited by
141
References
32
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 6
FWCI
5.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
word shape, word recognition, lexical access, mixed cases, lowercase letters, uncertainty reduction, letter identity, familiarity, expectancy, proofreading, tachistoscopic recognition, lexical decision, automatic reading
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Decision Making, Eye Movements, Form Perception, Fovea Centralis, Humans, Models, Psychological, Psychophysics, Reaction Time, Reading, Time Factors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review