OPTIMAL VIEWING POSITION OF PARTIALLY CONNECTED AND UNCONNECTED WORDS IN ARABIC

Deia Ganayim

doi:10.23947/2334-8496-2015-3-2-17-31

Authors

Deia Ganayim Arab Center for Mind, Brain & Behavior (ACMBB), Sakhnin

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.23947/2334-8496-2015-3-2-17-31

Keywords:

arabic, connected/unconnected words, optimal viewing position, right/left visual field, word recognition

Abstract

In order to assess the unique reading processes in Arabic, given its unique orthographic nature of natural inherent variations of inter-letter spacing, the current study examined the extent and influence of connectedness disparity during single word recognition using the optimal viewing position (OVP) paradigm. The initial word viewing position was systematically manipulated by shifting words horizontally relative to an imposed initial viewing position. However, unlike previous research, partially connected/unconnected three-, four- and five-letter Arabic words were displayed in the left and right visual hemifields at all possible locations of letter fixation. It was found that OVP effects occurred during the processing of isolated Arabic words. No OVP was found in three-letter words; for four- and five-letter words, the OVP effect appeared as a U-shaped curve with a minimum towards the second and third letters. Thus, the OVP effects generalize across structurally different alphabetic scripts. Furthermore, a perceptual superiority was found for words with right-positioned unconnected sub-units as compared to left positioned unconnected sub-units because of the differential sensitivity of the hemispheres to the gestalt form of letters. Such findings support the established view that the LH specializes in word recognition for alphabetic languages.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abd El-Minem, F. M. (1987). Elm al-sarf. Jerusalem: Al-Taufik Press [in Arabic].Abu-Rabia, S. (2001). The role of vowels in reading Semitic scripts: Data from Arabic and Hebrew. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 14, 39–59.

Abu-Rabia, S. (2001). The role of vowels in reading Semitic scripts: Data from Arabic and Hebrew. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 14, 39–59.

Abdelhadi, S., Ibrahim, R. & Eviatar, Z. (2011). Perceptual load in the reading of Arabic: Effects of orthographic visual complexity on detection. Writing Systems Research 3, 117–127.

Adamson, M. M. & Hellige, J. B. (2006). Hemispheric differences for identification of words and nonwords in Urdu-English bilinguals. Neuropsychology, 20, 232–248.

Aghababian, V. & Nazir, T.A. (2000). Developing normal reading skills: Aspects of the visual processes underlying word recognition. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 76, 123–150.

Almabruk, A. A. A., Paterson, K. B., McGowan, V. A., Jordan, T. R. (2011). Evaluating effects of divided hemispheric processing on word recognition in foveal and extrafoveal displays: The evidence from Arabic. PLoS ONE 6(4): e18131.

Belaid, A. & Choisy C. (2008). Human Reading Based Strategies for Off-Line Arabic Word Recognition. Arabic and Chinese Handwriting Recognition Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4768, 36-56.

Blommaert, F. J. (1988). Early-visual factors in letter confusions. Spatial Vision, 3, 199–224.

Bouma, H. (1971). Visual recognition of isolated lower-case letters. Vision Research, 11, 450–474.

Bouma, H. (1973). Visual interference in the parafoveal recognition of initial and final letters of words. Vision Research, 13(4), 767–782.

Briggs, R. & Hocevar, D. J. (1975). A new distinctive feature theory for upper case letters. Journal of General Psychology, 93, 87–93.

Broerse, A. C. & Zwaan, E. J. (1966). The information value of initial letters in the identification of words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5, 441–446.

Brysbaert, M. & Nazir, T. A. (2005). Visual constraints in written word recognition: Evidence from the optimal viewing-position effect. Journal of Research in Reading, 28, 216–228.

Brysbaert, M. (1994). Interhemispheric transfer and the processing of foveally presented stimuli. Behavioral Brain Research, 64, 151–161.

Brysbaert, M. (2004). The importance of interhemispheric transfer for foveal vision: A factor that has been overlooked in theories of visual word recognition and object perception. Brain and Language, 88, 259–267.

Brysbaert, M., Vitu, F. & Schroyens, W. (1996). The right visual field advantage and the optimal viewing position effect: On the relation between foveal and parafoveal word recognition. Neuropsychology, 10, 385–395.

Cattell, J. M. (1886). The time taken up by cerebral operations. Mind, 11, 377–392.

Chung, S. T. L., Legge, G. E. & Cheung, S. H. (2004). Letter-recognition and reading speed in peripheral vision benefit from perceptual learning. Vision Research, 44(7), 695–709.

Clark, J. J. & O’Regan, J. K. (1999). Word ambiguity and the optimal viewing position in reading. Vision Research, 39, 843–857.

Coltheart, M. (2005). Modeling Reading: The dual-route approach. In M. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.). The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 6-23). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108(1), 204–256.

Deutsch, A. & Rayner, K. (1999). Initial fixation location effects in reading Hebrew words. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 393–421.

Ducrot, S. & Pynte, J. (2002). What determines the eyes’ landing position in words? Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 1130–1144.

Ehri, C. L. & Snowling, J. M. (2005). Develop mental variations in word recognition. In C. A. Stone, R. E.

Ehri, L. (2005). Development of sight word reading: Phases and findings. In Snowling M. & Hulme C. (Eds.). The science of reading: a handbook (pp. 135-154). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Ellis, A. W. & Brysbaert, M. (2010). Split fovea theory and the role of the two cerebral hemispheres in reading: A review of the evidence. Neuropsychologia, 48(2), 353-365.

Eriksen, B. A. & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). The importance of being first: A tachistoscopic study of the contribution of each letter to the recognition of four-letter words. Perception & Psychophysics, 15, 66–72.

Eviatar, Z. & Zaidel, E. (1991). The effects of word length and emotionality on hemispheric contribution to lexical decision. Neuropsychologia, 29, 415–428.

Eviatar, Z., Ibrahim, R. & Ganayim, D. (2004). Orthography and the hemispheres: Visual and lilnguistic aspects of letter processing. Neuropsychology, 18, 174-184.

Farid, M. & Grainger, J. (1996). How initial fixation position influences visual word recognition: A comparison of French and Arabic. Brain and Language, 53, 351–368.

Gervais, M. J., Harvey, L. O., Jr. & Roberts, J. O. (1984). Identification confusions among letters of the alphabet. Journal of Experimental Psychology—Human Perception and Performance, 10, 655–666.

Geyer, L. H. (1977). Recognition and confusion of the lowercase alphabet. Perception & Psychophysics, 22, 487–490.

Gibson, E. J., Osser, H., Schiff, W. & Smith, J. (1963). An analysis of critical features of letters tested by a confusion matrix. In A basic research program on reading. Cooperative Research Project No. 639, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

Grainger, J. & Segui, J. (1990). Neighborhood frequency effects in visual word recognition: A comparison of lexical decision and masked identification latencies. Perception and Psychophysics, 47, 191–198.

Grainger, J. (1990). Word frequency and neighborhood frequency effects in lexical decision and naming. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 228–244.

Grainger, J., O’Regan, J.K., Jacobs, A.M. & Segui, J. (1989). On the role of competing word units in visual word recognition: The neighborhood frequency effect. Perception and Psychophysics, 45, 189–195.

Hsiao, J. H., Cipollini, B. & Cottrell, G. (2013). Hemispheric asymmetry in perception: A differential encoding account. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(7), 998-1007.

Hunter, Z. R., Brysbaert, M. & Knecht, S. (2007). Foveal word reading requires interhemispheric communication. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(8), 1373- 1387.

Hyönä, J. & Bertram, R. (2011). Optimal viewing position effects in reading Finnish. Vision Research, 51, 1279–1287.

Iacoboni, M. & Zaidel , E. (1996). Hemispheric independence in word recognition: evidence from unilateral and bilateral presentations. Brain and Language, 53, 121–140.

Ibrahim, R., and Eviatar, Z. (2009). Language status and hemispheric involvement in reading: Evidence from trilingual Arabic speakers tested in Arabic, Hebrew, and English. Neuropsychology, 23(2): 240-254.

Ibrahim, R., Eviatar, Z. & Aharon-Perez, J. (2002). Do the characteristics of Arabic orthography slow its cognitive processing? Neuropsychology,16, 322–326.

Jordan, T. R. & Paterson, K. B. (2009). Re-evaluating split-fovea processing in word recognition: A critical assessment of recent research. Neuropsychologia, 47(12), 2341-2353.

Jordan, T. R. & Paterson, K. B. (2010). Where is the evidence for split fovea processing in word recognition? Neuropsychologia, 48(9), 2782-2783.

Jordan, T. R., McGowan, V. A.,& Paterson, K. B. (2012). Reading with a filtered fovea: The influence of visual quality at the point of fixation during reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 1078–1084.

Jordan, T.R., Paterson, K.B., and Almabruk, A.A.A. (2010). Revealing the superior perceptibility of words in Arabic. Perception, 39: 426-428.

Joseph, H. S. S. L., Liversedge, S. P., Blythe, H. I., White, S. J. & Rayner, K. (2009). Word length and landing position effects during reading in children and adults. Vision Research, 49, 2078–2086.

Khateb A., Khateb-Abdelgani M., Taha H. Y. & Ibrahim R. (2014) The impact of orthographic connectivity on visual word recognition in Arabic: A cross-sectional study. Reading and Writing, 6, 1-24.

Khateb, A., Taha, H. Y., Elias, I. & Ibrahim, R. (2013). The effect of the internal orthographic connectivity of written Arabic words on the process of the visual recognition: A comparison between skilled and dyslexic readers. Writing Systems Research, 5, 214–233.

LaBerge, D. & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a Theory of Automatic Information Processing in Reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.

Lavidor, M. & Walsh, V. (2004). Opinion - The nature of foveal representation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5(9), 729-735.

Lavidor, M., Ellis, A. W., Shillcock, R., & Bland, T. (2001). Evaluating a split processing model of visual word recognition: Effects of word length. Cognitive Brain Research, 12, 265–272.

Legein, C. H. & Bouma, H. (1977). Dyslectic and normally-reading children. I. Exploration of a letter-search test for screening purposes. II. Follow-up and further exploration in 4 weak and 4 normal readers on letter, word and number recognition. Documenta Ophthalmologica, 42(2), 391–396.

Legge, G. E., Mansfield, J. S. & Chung, S. T. L. (2001). Psychophysics of reading: XX. Linking letter recognition to reading speed in central and peripheral vision. Vision Research, 41(6), 725–743.

Li, X. & Pollatsek, A. (2011). Word knowledge influences character perception. Psychonomics Bulletin & Review, 18, 833–839.

Lindell, A. K. & Nicholls, M. E. R. (2003). Cortical representation of the fovea: Implications for visual half-field research. Cortex, 39(1), 111-117.

Liu, P. & Li, X. (2013). Optimal viewing position effects in the processing of isolated Chinese words. Vision Research. 81, 45-57

Loomis, J. M. (1982). Analysis of tactile and visual confusion matrices. Perception & Psychophysics, 31, 41–52.

Martin, C. D., Thierry, G., Démonet, J. F., Roberts, M., & Nazir, T. (2007). ERP evidence for the split fovea theory. Brain Research, 1185, 212–220.

Nazir, T. A. (1991). On the role of refixations in letter strings: The influence of oculomotor factors. Perception & Psychophysics, 49, 373–389.

Nazir, T. A., Ben-Boutayab, N., Decoppet, N., Deutsch, A. & Frost, R. (2004). Reading habits, perceptual learning, and recognition of printed words. Brain and Language, 88, 294–311.

Nazir, T. A., Heller, D. & Sussmann, C. (1992). Letter visibility and word recognition: The optimal viewing position in printed words. Perception & Psychophysics, 52(3), 315–328.

Nazir, T. A., Jacobs, A. M. & O’Regan, J. K. (1998). Letter legibility and visual word recognition. Memory & Cognition, 26(4), 810–821.

O’Regan, J. K. & Jacobs, A. M. (1992). Optimal viewing position effect in word recognition: A challenge to current theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 185–197.

O’Regan, J. K., Levy-Schoen, A., Pynte, J. & Brugaillere, B. (1984). Convenient fixation location within isolated words of different length and structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(2), 250–257.

Paterson, K. B., Jordan, T. R. & Kurtev, S. (2009). Binocular Fixation Disparity in Single Word Displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 35(6), 1961-1968.

Pelli, D. G., Tillman, A. K., Freeman , J., Su, M., Berger, D., Tracey & Majaj, J. N. (2007). Crowding and Eccentricity Determine Reading Rate. Journal of Vision, 7(2), 1-36 .

Plummer, P. & Rayner, K. (2012). Effects of parafoveal word length and orthographic features on initial fixation landing positions in reading. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 74, 950–963.

Rayner, K. (1979). Eye guidance in reading: Fixation locations within words. Perception, 8, 21–30.

Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422.

Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1457–1506.

Rayner, K., Slattery, T. J., Drieghe, D. & Liversedge, S. P. (2011). Eye movements and word skipping during reading: Effects of word length and predictability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 514–528.

Reichle, E. D., Rayner, K. & Pollatsek, A. (2006). E–Z Reader: A cognitive-control, serial-attention model of eye-movement control during reading. Cognitive Systems Research, 7, 4–22.

Shillcock, R., Ellison, T. M. & Monaghan, P. (2000). Eye-fixation behavior, lexical storage, and visual word recognition in a split processing model. Psychological Review, 107(4), 824-851.

Stevens, M. & Grainger, J. (2003). Letter visibility and the viewing position effect in visual word recognition. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 133-151.

Stone, C. A. (2004). Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders. Guilford Press.

Stuart, M., Masterson, J., Dixon, M. & Quinlan, P. (1999). Inferring sublexical correspondences from sight vocabulary: Evidence from 6- and 7-year-olds. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 52(2), 353–366.

Taha, H., Ibrahim, R. & Khateb, A. (2013). How does Arabic orthographic connectivity modulate brain activity during visual word recognition: An ERP study. Brain Topography, 26, 292–302.

Taouk, M. & Coltheart, M. (2004).The Cognitive Processes Involved in Learning to Read in Arabic. Reading and Writing, 17 (1-2), 27-57.

Townsend, J. T. & Ashby, F. G. (1982). Experimental test of contemporary mathematical models of visual letter recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology—Human Perception and Performance, 8, 834–854.

Townsend, J. T. (1971a). Theoretical analysis of the alphabetic confusion matrix. Perception & Psychophysics, 9, 40–50.

Townsend, J. T. (1971b). Alphabetic confusion: a test of models for individuals. Perception & Psychophysics, 9, 449–454.

Townsend, J. T., Hu, G. G. & Evans, R. J. (1984). Modeling feature perception in brief displays with evidence for positive interdependencies. Perception & Psychophysics, 36, 35–49.

Van der Haegen, L. & Brysbaert, M. (2011). The mechanisms underlying the interhemispheric integration of information in foveal word recognition: Evidence for transcortical inhibition. Brain and Language, 118(3), 81-89.

Van der Haegen, L., Drieghe, D. & Brysbaert, M. (2010). The split fovea theory and the leicester critique: What do the data say? Neuropsychologia, 48, 96–106.

Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J. & Scanlon, D. M. (2004). Specific reading disability (dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(1), 2–40.

Vitu, F., Lancelin, D. & d’Unienville, V. M. (2007). A perceptual-economy account for the inverted-optimal viewing position effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 1220–1249.

Vitu, F., O’Regan, J. K. & Mittau, M. (1990). Optimal landing position in reading isolated words and continuous texts. Perception & Psychophysics, 47, 583–600.

Watson, A. B. & Fitzhugh, A. E. (1989). Model ling character legibility. Society for Information Display Digest of Technical Papers, 20, 360–363.

Wertheim, T. (1894). Uber die indirekte Sehscha¨rfe. Zeitschrift fu¨r Psychologie, 7, 172.

White, S. J., Hirotani, M. & Liversedge, S. P. (2012). Eye movement behaviour during reading of Japanese sentences: Effects of word length and visual complexity. Reading and Writing, 25, 981–1006.

White, S. J., Johnson, R. L., Liversedge, S. P. & Rayner, K. (2008). Eye movements when reading transposed text: The importance of word-beginning letters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 1261–1276.

Whitney, C. (2001). How the brain encodes the order of letters in a printed word: The SERIOL model and selective literature review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8(2), 221-243.

Whitney, D. & Levi, D. M. (2011). Visual crowding: A fundamental limit on conscious perception and object recognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 154.

Wong, Y. K. & Hsiao, J. H. (2012). Reading direction is sufficient to account for the optimal viewing position in reading: The case of music reading. Paper presented at The 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci2012), Sapporo, Japan.

Yan, G., Tian, H., Bai, X. & Rayner, K. (2006). The effect of word and character frequency on the eye movements of Chinese readers. British Journal of Psychology, 97, 259–268.

Yao-N’Dré, M., Castet, E. & Vitu, F. (2013). The optimal viewing position effect in the lower visual field. Vision Research, 76, 114–123.