Theoretically important insights in the visual word recognition literature have emerged from studying how different factors jointly affect lexical processing. Almost all joint effects are reflected in over-additive interactions, which are predicted by most current models. In contrast, additive effects pose profound challenges for these models. The present study explores the joint effects of stimulus quality and word frequency, which previously have been shown to robustly produce additive effects in lexical decision on mean response time (RT). Here, we assessed how the effects of these factors on RT distributions are moderated by nonword difficulty (pronounceable nonwords, e.g., FLIRP, vs. transposed letter nonwords, e.g., JUGDE from JUDGE). In the context of difficult transposed letter nonwords, there was an over-additive interaction between stimulus quality and word frequency in modal RTs that was opposed by an under-additive interaction between the same two factors for slower responses. In contrast, with standard pronounceable nonwords, the foregoing three-way interaction was eliminated, leaving additive effects of word frequency and stimulus quality across the RT distribution. These findings reinforce the importance of considering the interplay between task-specific and task-general processing in the context of RT distributions for current models, while demonstrating that complex empirical patterns are predictable and highly replicable in this domain.

Two experiments investigated the role of task set in processing the direction indicated by arrows and words. In Experiment 1, in one block of trials, participants made stimulus-response (S-R) compatible manual responses to a left-or-right-pointing arrow in the presence of either a congruent or incongruent word (LEFT/RIGHT); in another block, they responded to the direction signaled by a word in the presence of a congruent or incongruent arrow. Task set was, therefore, simple in each block-respond to only one of the two stimulus types. Yet an incongruent word did not interfere with responding to an arrow's direction, whereas an incongruent arrow robustly interfered with responding to the direction signaled by a word. In Experiment 2, targets were instead defined in terms of a fixed location (for one group, the distractor appeared below the target; for another group, the distractor appeared above the target) such that the target on any trial could be either a word or an arrow. Task set now was more complex in that target type varied unpredictably across trials. Distractor words now interfered with arrows, and distractor arrows interfered with words more than they did in Experiment 1. These results require a more integrative account that embeds S-R compatibility within a larger framework involving contextually driven modulation of task set.

A controversial issue in the literature on single word reading concerns whether semantic activation from a printed word can be stopped. Several reports have claimed that, even when attention is directed to a single letter in a word, semantic interference persists full blown in the context of variants of Stroop’s paradigm. Incidental word recognition is thus claimed to be unaffected by directed spatial attention and hence to be automatic by this criterion. In contrast, the literature examining the relation between intentional visual word recognition and spatial attention in tasks like lexical decision and reading aloud suggests that spatial attention is a necessary preliminary to lexical/semantic processing of a word. These opposing conclusions raise the question of whether there is a qualitative difference between incidental and intentional visual word recognition when spatial attention is considered. We first consider the methodology from Stroop experiments in which putatively narrowed spatial attention manipulations failed to prevent interference from semantics. We then report a new experiment that better promotes focused spatial attention. The results yield clear evidence that the effect of semantic activation can indeed be sidelined because one or more prior processes were in large measure stopped. We conclude that incidental word recognition is not automatic in the sense of occurring without any kind of attention.

Important insights in visual word recognition have been provided by studies examining the combined influence of multiple factors on participants’ mean response times to English words in the lexical decision task. However, to make progress towards a complete understanding of how meaning is activated by print, researchers need to conduct more detailed analyses of behavioral patterns beyond mean response latencies and accuracies, particularly how variables influence different components of response time distributions. Moreover, it is critical to extend patterns found in English to the diverse scripts encountered by readers across the world. The present study is the first to explore the theoretically important effects of stimulus quality and word frequency on lexical decisions involving two-character Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese Chinese words, using participants from Singapore and Hong Kong, respectively. Despite the profound differences between the English and Chinese writing systems, we observed remarkably similar trade-offs in the stimulus quality × word frequency interaction across different portions of the response time distribution for both orthographies, indicating that the optimization of lexical processing by leveraging available codes in response to task demands extends across multiple and highly diverse writing systems.

One of the most fundamental distinctions in cognitive psychology is between processing that is "controlled" and processing that is "automatic." The widely held automatic processing account of visual word identification asserts that, among other characteristics, the presentation of a well-formed letter string triggers sublexical, lexical, and semantic activation in the absence of any intention to do so. Instead, the role of intention is seen as independent of stimulus identification and as restricted to selection for action using the products of identification (e.g., braking in response to a sign saying "BRIDGE OUT"). We consider four paradigms with respect to the role of an intention-defined here as a "task set" indicating how to perform in the current situation-when identifying single well-formed letter strings. Contrary to the received automaticity view, the literature regarding each of these paradigms demonstrates that the relation between an intention and stimulus identification is constrained in multiple ways, many of which are not well understood at present. One thing is clear: There is no simple relation between an intention, in the form of a task set, and stimulus identification. Automatic processing of words, if this indeed ever occurs, certainly is not a system default. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

The notion that some mental processes are "automatic" while others are "controlled" is a distinction that appears in virtually all cognition textbooks, as well as in thousands of papers and book chapters. Indeed, so entrenched is the automatic side of this distinction that various leading computational accounts make no mention of it, but instead assume it implicitly. These models, and the field more generally, assume that processing is stimulus triggered and does not need any form of attention or an intention as a preliminary. Further, the fundamental processing dynamics underlying such automatic processing is widely seen as consisting of interactive activation and autonomous in that it unfolds in the same way across contexts. I review a number of findings from my lab that lead me to a different conclusion. Visual word recognition requires a consideration and integrated understanding of automaticity, attention, intention, context, and cognitive processing. I present various findings that challenge the preeminent role ascribed to interactive activation as implemented in the dominant computational models. I conclude that, going forward, the time is due for computational models of visual word recognition (and researchers in the field more generally) to acknowledge that the findings reported here constitute benchmarks that constrain theory and present opportunities for making meaningful advances in our understanding of visual word recognition (and perhaps of cognition more generally). A few proposals for how we might think about some of these processes are offered. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Additive effects of Stimulus Quality and Word Frequency on RT in the context of lexical decision when the foils are orthographically legal were first reported more than 4 decades ago, and subsequently replicated numerous times. Two accounts are considered that make different a priori predictions when the foils are orthographically illegal. Yap and Balota's (2007) Familiarity Discrimination account predicts additive effects of these two factors on mean RT and across the RT distribution because it assumes a staged normalization process that deals with the effect of low Stimulus Quality; a subsequent process produces the effect of Word Frequency. In contrast, O'Malley and Besner's (2008) context-dependent thresholding/cascading account predicts an interaction because the use of illegal foils eliminates the need for thresholding at the letter level normally used to protect against lexical capture (identifying a nonword as a word) in experiments where Stimulus Quality is a factor, and hence the system reverts to processes in cascade. Critically, the present experiment yielded an interaction in which low-frequency words were more impaired by low Stimulus Quality than were high-frequency words. These data are inconsistent with the Familiarity Discrimination account as currently constituted, but consistent with a context-specific cascaded account. Further discussion considers how the Familiarity account may be modified so as to accommodate these data. Most generally, these data add to the view that processing is highly malleable (context dependent) rather than the received view, especially in regard to computational accounts, in which interactive-activation dynamics dominate. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Eyes in a schematic face and arrows presented at fixation can each cue an upcoming lateralized target such that responses to the target are faster to a valid than an invalid cue (sometimes claimed to reflect “automatic” orienting). One test of an automatic process concerns the extent to which it can be interfered with by another process. The present experiment investigates the ability of eyes and arrows to cue an upcoming target when both cues are present at the same time. On some trials they are congruent (both cues signal the same direction); on other trials they are incongruent (the two cues signal opposite directions). When the cues are congruent a valid cue produced faster response times than an invalid cue. In the incongruent case arrows are resistant to interference from eyes, whereas an incongruent arrow eliminates a cueing effect for eyes. The discussion elaborates briefly on the theoretical implications.

A widely held account asserts that single words are automatically identified in the absence of an intent to process them in the form of identifying a task set, and implementing it. We provide novel evidence that there is no fixed relation between intention and visual word identification. Subjects were randomly cued on a trial-by-trial basis as to whether to read aloud a single target word (Go) or not (No-go). When the Go-No Go probability was 50% (Experiment 1) the effect of stimulus quality (bright vs. dim targets) was the same size as in a separate block of 100% Go trials. In Experiment 2, where the Go-No Go probability was 80% in the cued condition, the stimulus quality effect was smaller than in the block of all Go trials. These results can be understood in terms of Go trial probability moderating whether subjects (i) hold off beginning to process the target until an intention in the form of a Task Set has been implemented, or (ii) begin to identify the target during the time taken to implement a Task Set. The additivity of stimulus quality and cueing conditions in Experiment 1 support the view that target processing only begins when a Task Set is in place, whereas the under-additivity of stimulus quality and cueing condition in Experiment 2 supports the interpretation that target identification can start during the time that a Task Set is being implemented. Taken together with other results, we conclude that there is no fixed relation between an intention and word identification; context is everything.

It is a widely held view that the determination of eye gaze direction is "automatic" in various senses (e.g., innate; informationally encapsulated; triggered without intent). The determination of arrow direction is also held to be automatic (following a certain amount of learning) despite not being innate. The present experiments evaluate the automaticity assumption of both eyes and arrows in terms of an interference criterion. The results of 10 experiments support the inference that explicit judgements of eye gaze direction, when participants respond with a lateralized key press, are (a) neither automatic in the strong sense (they are interfered with by an uninformative, incongruent arrow in the display) and (b) nor are they are automatic in a weaker sense (uninformative, incongruent arrows interfere more strongly with the determination of eye gaze direction than uninformative, incongruent eyes interfere with the arrow direction task). However, the determination of arrow direction is also not strongly automatic, given that it is interfered with by irrelevant eyes. At least with respect to an interference criterion, the determination of eye gaze direction appears less prepotent than the determination of arrow direction, which itself is only weakly automatic. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Rosenbaum, Mama, and Algom (2017) reported that participants who completed the Stroop task (i.e., name the hue of a color word when the hue and word meaning are congruent or incongruent) showed a smaller Stroop effect (i.e., the difference in response times between congruent and incongruent trials) when they performed the task standing than when sitting. We report five attempted replications (analyzed sample sizes: N = 108, N = 108, N = 98, N = 78, and N = 51, respectively) of Rosenbaum et al.’s findings, which were conducted in two institutions. All experiments yielded the standard Stroop effect, but we failed to detect any consistent effect of posture (sitting vs. standing) on the magnitude of the Stroop effect. Taken together, the results suggest that posture does not influence the magnitude of the Stroop effect to the extent that was previously suggested.

Few phenomena in reading research are as ubiquitous as the observation (both within and across paradigms) that high frequency words are easier to process than lower frequency ones. Jainta et al (2014) and Jainta et al (2017) report an exception in that, when reading sentences with only one eye, the word frequency advantage disappeared. If this same pattern were seen in single word reading it would strongly challenge all current theoretical accounts of reading aloud currently on the table. The present experiment therefore explored whether this same pattern is evident when participants read aloud single words under monocular (versus binocular) conditions. Bayesian analysis techniques reveal that, in contrast to the sentence reading results, a monocular condition does not modulate the word frequency effect when reading single words aloud. The present result thus point to a qualitative difference between word recognition processes seen in single word reading versus those seen in eye tracking studies.

A widely accepted belief across a range of subfields in psychology is that print activates semantics “automatically” in some sense. One such sense is that activating semantics does not require capacity. This view is assessed here in the context of the Psychological Refractory Period (PRP) paradigm because it provides a way of determining whether semantic activation requires a form of capacity. Task 1 was tone classification. Task 2 was Stroop color naming. The distractors consisted of color words on some trials (e.g., BLUE), and semantic associates on others (e.g., TOMATO). Both types of distractors yielded a pattern of data inconsistent with the widespread view that semantic activation is capacity free.

A prominent question in visual word recognition is whether letters within a word are processed in parallel or in a left to right sequence. Although most contemporary models posit parallel processing, this notion seems at odds with well-established serial position effects in word identification that indicate preferential processing for the initial letter. The present study reports 4 experiments designed to further probe the locus of the first position processing advantage. The paradigm involved masked target words presented for short durations and required participants to subsequently select from 2 alternatives, 1 which was identical to the target and 1 that differed by a single letter. Experiment 1 manipulated the case between the target and the alternatives to ensure that previous evidence for a first position effect was not due to simple perceptual matching. The results continued to yield a robust first position advantage. Experiment 2 attempted to eliminate postperceptual decision processes as the explanatory mechanism by presenting single letters as targets and requiring participants to select an entire word that contained the target letter at different positions. Here the first position advantage was eliminated, suggesting postperceptual decision processes do not underlie the effect. The final 2 experiments presented masked stimuli either all vertically (Experiment 3) or randomly intermixed vertical and horizontal orientation (Experiment 4). In both cases, a robust first position advantage was still obtained. The authors consider alternative interpretations of this effect and suggest that these results are consistent with a rapid deployment of spatial attention to the beginning of a target string which occurs poststimulus onset.

Interactive activation accounts of processing have had a broad and deep influence on cognitive psychology, particularly so in the context of computational accounts of reading aloud at the single word level. Here we address the issue of whether such a framework can simulate the joint effects of stimulus quality and word frequency (which have been shown to produce both additive and interactive effects depending on the context). We extend previous work on this question by considering an alternative implementation of a stimulus quality manipulation, and the role of interactive activation. Simulations with a version of the Dual Route Cascaded model (a model with interactive activation dynamics along the lexical route) demonstrate that the model is unable to simulate the entire pattern seen in human performance. We discuss how a hybrid interactive activation model that includes some context dependent staged processing could accommodate these data.

The frequency with which words appear in print is a powerful predictor of the time to read monosyllabic words aloud, and consequently all models of reading aloud provide an explanation for this effect. The entire class of localist accounts assumes that the effect of word frequency arises because the mental lexicon is organized around frequency of occurrence (the action is inside the lexical boxes). We propose instead that the frequency of occurrence effect is better understood in terms of the hypothesis that the strength of between module connections varies as a function of word frequency. Findings from 3 different lines of investigation (experimental and computational) are difficult to understand in terms of the "within lexicon" account, but are consistent with the strength of between-module connections account. (PsycINFO Database Record