Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T14:44:20.244Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Position-invariant letter identification is a key component of any universal model of reading

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 August 2012

Jeffrey S. Bowers
Jeffrey S. Bowers*
Affiliation:
School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8-1TU, United Kingdom. [email protected]://psychology.psy.bris.ac.uk/people/jeffbowers.htm
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A universal property of visual word identification is position-invariant letter identification, such that the letter “A” is coded in the same way in CAT and ACT. This should provide a fundamental constraint on theories of word identification, and, indeed, it inspired some of the theories that Frost has criticized. I show how the spatial coding scheme of Colin Davis (2010) can, in principle, account for contrasting transposed letter (TL) priming effects, and at the same time, position-invariant letter identification.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 35 , Issue 5 , October 2012 , pp. 281 - 282
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bowers, J. S., Damian, M. F. & Davis, C. J. (2009) A fundamental limitation of the conjunctive codes learned in PDP models of cognition: Comments on Botvinick and Plaut (2006). Psychological Review 116:986–97.Google Scholar
Bowers, J. S. & Davis, C. J. (2009) Learning representations of wordforms with recurrent networks: Comment on Sibley, Kello, Plaut, & Elman. Cognitive Science 33:1183–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, C. J. (1999) The self-organising lexical acquisition and recognition (SOLAR) model of visual word recognition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New South Wales.Google Scholar
Davis, C. J. (2010) The spatial coding model of visual word identification. Psychological Review 117:713–58.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1988) Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. Cognition 28:3–71.Google Scholar
Gomez, P., Ratcliff, R. & Perea, M. (2008) The overlap model: A model of letter position coding. Psychological Review 115:577–601.Google Scholar
Grainger, J. & van Heuven, W. (2003) Modeling letter position coding in printed word perception. In: The mental lexicon, ed. Bonin, P., pp. 1–24. Nova Science.Google Scholar
Grossberg, S. (1978) Behavioral contrast in short-term memory: Serial binary memory models or parallel continuous memory models? Journal of Mathematical Psychology 17:199–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hummel, J. E., & Biederman, I. (1992) Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition. Psychological Review 99:480–517.Google Scholar
Norris, D., Kinoshita, S. & van Casteren, M. (2010) A stimulus sampling theory of letter identity and order. Journal of Memory and Language 62:254–71.Google Scholar
Whitney, C. (2001) How the brain encodes the order of letters in a printed word: The SERIOL model and selective literature review. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 8(2):221–43.Google Scholar