A Test of the Word Superiority Effect among University Students - Lab Report Example

A Test of the Word Superiority Effect Among University Students Hannah Reed Edith Cowan University Abstract The “word superiority effect” (WSE) refers to the phenomenon that people have a better letter recognition when the letter presented within a word than when the letter is in isolation and when the letter is presented in a string of pseudowords (Hayashi, Schmidt & Saunders, 2013). The WSE also manifests when comparing the letter identification within the words to the letter identification within the pseudo words (Lee & Park, 2014). The Reicher-Wheeler task was designed to measure the WSE. (RESULTS) . A Test of the Word Superiority Effect Among University Students Is the identification of letters affected by presenting the letters in isolation or by presenting them as part of a word? Humans are very good at identifying visual patterns. The context of the stimuli tends to play a vital role in the interpretation of the physical stimulus (Coch & Mitra, 2010). The WSE was first tested by Richer (1969). The WSE is a psychological phenomenon wherein an observer is more likely to recall a letter if displaying in the context of a familiar word. If the letter is shown in the context of a pseudo word or in isolation, the observer is less likely to recall this letter. Richer (1969) and Wheeler (1970) designed a text to index the WSE. This task is known as the Richer Wheeler paradigm. Richer Wheeler paradigm is a test of the effect of the WSE. In the experiment, an isolated letter such as D or a word such as WORK is momentarily displayed on the screen and then replaced immediately by a mask of Os and Xs. The viewer is then required to select between whether a K or a D was presented. The main component of the test is that both of the selection at the end of the WOR will produce a valid word (Kaan & Carlisle, 2014). This controls the variable and prevents the participant from selecting the answer that would create a word rather than the correct answer (Lee & Park, 2014). The classical results indicates that the detection of letter K is improved when the letter is presented as part of a word than when the letter is presented in isolation. This is the WCE (Speelman & McGann, 2013). The experiment is designed to confirm the classical results. The experiment also aims to examine the pervasiveness of the classic results. The following method was applied in carrying out the experiment. Method The experiment was conducted using the Coglab software (Coglab.cengage.com, 2015). We first obtained the participants who were all university students. In the experiment, nine stimuli were presented. They were used to generate 48 observations covering every level of all of the major variables: cueing condition, type of the material and stimulus duration (Kaan & Carlisle, 2014). During every session, the participant were presented in three blocks of the trials that corresponded to the three stimulus durations. In each of the blocks, the positions of the critical letter and the order of the presentation were random. We also selected at random the order of the variables were. The durations were changed systematically after every second trial so that all the likely orders of the stimulus duration for both the non-precued and the precued conditions could be observed (Coch & Mitra, 2010). For the study we used a total of 216 four-letter words. The letters for each word were chosen so that either letter would result in a real word. For example, K and D were the alternative for the word “WORD”, were as the letter D being the critical letter. This method prevents the participants becoming confused and choosing the letter to fit a real word (Hayashi, Schmidt & Saunders, 2013). We created single-letter groups by the use of the same critical letters, in similar positions as they were applied in the word set. For example, with the word “WORD”, there was the letter “D” with an alternative K and D. The letters could feature in any of the possible eight positions in a stimulus display of four columns and two rows. A single letter could feature similarly often in any of the eight positions. Within the experiment with the two-letter set, the critical letter appearing regularly in every eight location with the other letter occurring randomly in any position not occupied by the critical letter. This same pattern was applied for the one and two quadrigrams and one and two words. A three-channel tachistoscope (the Scientific Prototype Model GB) were employed for the presentation of the stimulus materials (Coch & Mitra, 2010). During the experiment, a fixation point was exhibited on a blank field. It was then followed by the display of the stimulus material that was initiated by the participant after the ready signal. The stimulus was then followed by the visual noise-masking field. The masking field had two response alternatives that were right above or below the place of the critical letters in the previous stimulus display that depended on whether the critical letter had stood in the bottom or the top row of the display. In the first session of the experiment, the total duration at which every participant performed at 90% accuracy in the documentation of single letters from the two reaction alternatives was determined. The experimented materials were a pair of 120 single-letter displays in which every of the letters of the alphabet were employed an equal number of times. There was random choosing of the incorrect alternatives. The mechanism for getting the 90% point an improvised up-and-down threshold procedure. Only, the last 60 of the total trial were employed in the determination of the 90% performance duration (Kaan & Carlisle, 2014). In the second session, the duration that yield 60% performance for every participant was determined. The exact durations used for every participant were the time at which participant attained 60% performance, the period which a participant acquired 90% performance plus 5ms and the duration that lays midway between the stated two points. The variance between the larger and the shorter duration was 25ms. There was six types of material that were sorted into blocks of 48 stimulus items. Every of the block was containing one instance of every kind of the material with the critical letter in every of the eight locations. Literature Review A Test of the Word Superiority Effect among University Students The Word Superiority effect was first observed by some loser who should have had better things to do with his time. The identification of letters fixed in a briefly offered word (for example TABLE), pseudowords (for example TOBLE), and the illegal non-words (for example TPBFE) was first dignified by the Reicher-Wheeler paradigm. Children identified as dyslexic and viewing a clear difficulty in the identifying and reading aloud words and pseudowords (related to sequential age-matched controls) exhibited a pattern of outcomes that was qualitatively indistinguishable to both reading age and sequential age control children. In all three groups, a small nonsignificant benefit was found for letter recognition in words paralleled to the pseudowords, and a huge advantage for the letter recognition in the pseudoword compared to illegal non-words. A group of adult contributed in the examination with the same materials indicated the classic word superiority consequence as well as the pseudowords benefit over illegal nonwords. The result advocates that the pseudoword superiority consequence is subtend by regulating at the level of sub verbal orthographic exemplification. This phenomenon could offer a useful tool for future research of the expansion of the orthotactic restrictions during reading acquisition. Results The result indicates that the comparison shows that participants performed poorly in precued sets compared with the non-precued set. Both conditions were the same apart from the advance information concerning the alternatives in the precued conditions. The results for of all sets were analysed using contingency table analysis (Gsite.univ-provence.fr, 2015). The result also indicates that differences between the non-precued and the precued conditions for every material were significant that is p < .01 for every comparison. The trial was successful in the collection of the data for both the three stimulus durations with diverse performance levels (for every evaluations collapsed over the type of material, the p < .001). The result were consistent when comparing with the data for individual participants (Myla & Kazemi, 2011). Besides, the result indicates that the collapsing above the stimulus period in the non-precued form, performance on a single word was much better than the presentation on a single letter (p < .001). Besides, the presentation on two words was also better than that of either two quadrigrams (p < .01) or two letters (p < .05). The same ordering result was found true for the results observed in the precued condition (for every comparisons p < .01) (Myla & Kazemi, 2011). Furthermore, the result showed that eight of the total of nine participants worked better on a one words than on the single letters. The exceptional participant that reversed the trend was the only one that claimed that she saw the words as four distinct letters which she made into the words. The remaining participants claimed that they saw the word as a word and not as a four letters making up the word (Coch & Mitra, 2010). The performance on a single quadrigram was better on two letters (for every clue condition, the p < .001). It was also argued by the participants that the two letters inclined to divide their attentions such that the material seemed sometimes more difficult for them than that of one quadrigram that the claimed they could sometimes state or make them into a word (Estes, 2014). The alterations attributable to the stimulus limits held up over every of the serial locations apart from when the critical letter was in the lowest row in the two-item form. Hayashi, Schmidt and Saunders (2013) demonstrate that the performance for two words stimuli was worse than the performance on the two letters when their critical letter was in the lowest row. Hayashi, Schmidt and Saunders (2013) results consistent for every stimulus duration. The result of the confidence scores ropes the frequency data such that the participants were more confident in the experiment on words than that of the remaining types of materials (Myla & Kazemi, 2011). The alteration between one and two of every kind of material was not bigger as it might be expected from the frequency data (Coch & Mitra, 2010). In addition, the result also found that majority of participants seemed a bit more confident on experiment involving one quadrigram than those of single letters thus, not supporting the frequency data (Durso Nickerson, Dumais, Lewandowsky & Perfect, 2007). Discussion This study was conducted to demonstrate the phenomenon of the word superiority. The historical assumption is that the processing time refers to the critical variable in this experiment and also that it is the monotic function of the time taken between the onset of the masking field and the onset of the stimulus, the following conclusion can be made (Hayashi, Schmidt & Saunders, 2013). The previous models proposed that there is likelihood of having a limit to the total number of letters that can comfortable be handled in the parallel (Coch & Mitra, 2010). From this data, the WSE should manifest in 89% of people. The impact of the WSC may depend on the kind of scanning or strategy that the participant used (Durso et al., 2007). The results also show that participant’s knowledge is a factor. If the participants believe they will have to recall a single letter of a word they will perform better than if they anticipate having to recall a single letter (Speelman & McGann, 2013). The stated conditions challenged one of the serial model. When two of every type of the material was seen to be worse than the same presentation on one of that same kind. This may be due to the stimulus so similar that the participant confused the result (Coch & Mitra, 2010). The study reputes the fact that the performance on the words was significantly superior to the performance on the letters is consistent with the finds of the classical experiment (Hayashi, Schmidt & Saunders, 2013). Analysing in terms using the hierarchical system of the information processing can impede how a word can be processed faster than even the elements that make up the word (Coglab.cengage.com, 2015). If the assumption is considered wrong and that some of the variables besides the processing time to be significant in the performance on this experiment, it could be difficult to know whether the performance on the words was as good as or even better than the performance on the letters. The reason is because of the processing time or even due to other variables (Coch & Mitra, 2010). The study indicates that one of the likely explanations for WCE is that, the letters in isolation are more quickly forgotten than the words. The trial to decrease the memory load by providing participants the response substitutions before exhibition of the stimulus presentation was not successful (Speelman & McGann, 2013). Moreover, the data of the current experiment does not suggest any encouraging explanations of why the previous performance was hampered. However, under somewhat diverse conditions, the opposite results have been obtained by earlier experiments (Myla & Kazemi, 2011). Furthermore, the second possibility is proposed by the reports of some of the participants that stated that a single letter was difficult to find in the field of tachistoscope than that of the four letters. If the procedure of the discernment can be fragmented down into recognition and detections with the accomplishment of the previous mandatory before the proceeding to the letter, then the greater performance on the words could be well explained in terms of their augmented detectability due to the larger area that is taken up by the words than the one taken up by the letters The alternatives to the hierarchical processing. (Psychologyconcepts.com, 2013). It is seen that the single words are read more fast than the single letters in the reading response time experiment because, the existing association between the letter and its name (Hayashi, Schmidt & Saunders, 2013). Besides, Gestalt field effect also suggested often that the whole figures are more easily seen than the way the elements of which the words are comprised can be seen (Coglab.cengage.com, 2015). Durso et al. (2007) has proposed a theory of the sort reflected here. He claims that “there are early passive analysers which operate on the information in the parallel and that further “construction” of the percept takes place serially” (Durso et al, 2007). The theory suggests that the construction phase of the discernment could, apparently, take the benefit of the substantial degree of the lower level handling. Therefore, it continues to state that a word or even a meaning response, could easily constructed instead of the isolated words or letters of which it is composed of (Hayashi, Schmidt & Saunders, 2013). Conclusion Concerning the issue of identification of letters presented either in isolation and the ones presented as part of a word, the result from the experiment shows clear that the letters are identified faster when it is presented as a part of the word than when presented in isolation. This is referred to as the WSE (Coch & Mitra, 2010). However, the current experiment cannot be definitively conclude with the respect to the phase of information processing at which the serial processing is executed (Psychologyconcepts.com, 2013). However, it appears very clear that the general processing time for the multiple-letter arrays requires not to surpass that for the single letters (Coch & Mitra, 2010). Reference Coch, D. and Mitra, P. (2010). Word and pseudo word superiority effects reflected in the ERP waveform. Brain Research, 1329, pp.159-174. Coglab.cengage.com. (2015). CogLab: Word Superiority. [online] Available at: https://coglab.cengage.com/labs/word_superiority.shtml [Accessed 29 Sep. 2015]. Durso, F., Nickerson, R., Dumais, S., Lewandowsky, S. & Perfect, T. (2007). Handbook of Applied Cognition. Wiley. Estes, W. (2014). Handbook of Learning and Cognitive Processes (Volume 6). Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. Gsite.univ-provence.fr. (2015). Université de provence / accueil. [online] Available at: http://gsite.univ-provence.fr [Accessed 29 Sep. 2015]. Hayashi, Y., Schmidt, A. and Saunders, K. (2013). Effects of letter-identification training on letter naming in prereading children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46(4), pp.838-843. Kaan, E. and Carlisle, E. (2014). ERP Indices of Stimulus Prediction in Letter Sequences. Brain Sciences, 4(4), pp.509-531. Lee, Y. and Park, S. (2014). Effects of the Elementary Inclusive Career Education Program Using Co-teaching on the Career Matursity and Learning Motivation of Students with and without Disabilities. Special Education Research, 13(1), p.245. Myla, S. and Kazemi, S. (2011). Interventional Perspectives on Carotid Stenting – Examining the Trial Data. Interventional Cardiology Review, 6(1), p.76. Psychologyconcepts.com, (2013). Word Superiority Effect | Psychology Concepts. [online] Available at: http://www.psychologyconcepts.com/word-superiority-effect/ [Accessed 29 Sep. 2015]. Reicher, G. M. (1969). Perceptual recognition as a function of meaningfulness of stimulus material. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 275–280. Speelman, C. & McGann. M. (2013). How Mean is the Mean?. Frontiers in Psychology, 4. Stadler, H. (2006). Disabil-ITy-Projekt zur Berufsvorbereitung junger Menschen mit Körperbehinderungen abgeschlossen. Die Rehabilitation, 45(3):186-187. Wheeler, D. D. (1970). Processes in word recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 1, 59–85. Read More

The experiment is designed to confirm the classical results. The experiment also aims to examine the pervasiveness of the classic results. The following method was applied in carrying out the experiment. Method The experiment was conducted using the Coglab software (Coglab.cengage.com, 2015). We first obtained the participants who were all university students. In the experiment, nine stimuli were presented. They were used to generate 48 observations covering every level of all of the major variables: cueing condition, type of the material and stimulus duration (Kaan & Carlisle, 2014).

During every session, the participant were presented in three blocks of the trials that corresponded to the three stimulus durations. In each of the blocks, the positions of the critical letter and the order of the presentation were random. We also selected at random the order of the variables were. The durations were changed systematically after every second trial so that all the likely orders of the stimulus duration for both the non-precued and the precued conditions could be observed (Coch & Mitra, 2010).

For the study we used a total of 216 four-letter words. The letters for each word were chosen so that either letter would result in a real word. For example, K and D were the alternative for the word “WORD”, were as the letter D being the critical letter. This method prevents the participants becoming confused and choosing the letter to fit a real word (Hayashi, Schmidt & Saunders, 2013). We created single-letter groups by the use of the same critical letters, in similar positions as they were applied in the word set.

For example, with the word “WORD”, there was the letter “D” with an alternative K and D. The letters could feature in any of the possible eight positions in a stimulus display of four columns and two rows. A single letter could feature similarly often in any of the eight positions. Within the experiment with the two-letter set, the critical letter appearing regularly in every eight location with the other letter occurring randomly in any position not occupied by the critical letter.

This same pattern was applied for the one and two quadrigrams and one and two words. A three-channel tachistoscope (the Scientific Prototype Model GB) were employed for the presentation of the stimulus materials (Coch & Mitra, 2010). During the experiment, a fixation point was exhibited on a blank field. It was then followed by the display of the stimulus material that was initiated by the participant after the ready signal. The stimulus was then followed by the visual noise-masking field.

The masking field had two response alternatives that were right above or below the place of the critical letters in the previous stimulus display that depended on whether the critical letter had stood in the bottom or the top row of the display. In the first session of the experiment, the total duration at which every participant performed at 90% accuracy in the documentation of single letters from the two reaction alternatives was determined. The experimented materials were a pair of 120 single-letter displays in which every of the letters of the alphabet were employed an equal number of times.

There was random choosing of the incorrect alternatives. The mechanism for getting the 90% point an improvised up-and-down threshold procedure. Only, the last 60 of the total trial were employed in the determination of the 90% performance duration (Kaan & Carlisle, 2014). In the second session, the duration that yield 60% performance for every participant was determined. The exact durations used for every participant were the time at which participant attained 60% performance, the period which a participant acquired 90% performance plus 5ms and the duration that lays midway between the stated two points.

The variance between the larger and the shorter duration was 25ms. There was six types of material that were sorted into blocks of 48 stimulus items.

Read More