Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,151

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Interaction of information in word recognition.

Morton, John·1969·Psychological Review
DOI 10.1037/h0027366
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Quantitative predictions are made from a model for word recognition. The model has as its central feature a set of "logogens": devices which accept information relevant to a particular word response irrespective of the source of this information. When more than a threshold amount of information has accumulated in any logogen, that particular response becomes available for responding. The model is tested against data available on the effect of word frequency on recognition, the effect of limiting the number of response alternatives, the interaction of stimulus and context, and the interaction of successive presentations of stimuli. The implications of the underlying model are largely upheld. Other possible models for word recognition are discussed as are the implications of the Logogen Model for theories of memory. In previous papers a functional model for word recognition has been developed (Morton, 1964a, 1964b, 1964d; Morton & Broadbent, 1967). The form of description used only lent itself to qualitative predictions and while it seemed to have some heuristic value, the overall system was too complex to allow rigorous specification of its properties. In the present paper the model is first outlined in a slightly simplified way and then certain features of it are isolated in order to make quantitative predictions about performance in word recognition. The various predictions made are largely independent and have in common only the fact that in all situations there is some stimulus information present. The effects of word frequency are taken to indicate relatively permanent changes in the system; the effects of having a reduced set of alternative responses involve temporary changes in the same variable. Different predictions are made concerning the interaction of a context with the stimulus and the effects of repeated presentation, these differences arising from differences in the potential sources of such information. The model contrasts most completely with explanations of word

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/h0027366

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Morton, J.
Venue
Psychological Review
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1969-03
Volume
76
Issue
2
Pages
165-178
ISSN
  • 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1471
DOI
10.1037/h0027366
OpenAlex
W2040187703
Cited by
2,151
References
2
FWCI
26.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.