ArticleVision research2019
Feature contingencies when reading letter strings.
Article in Vision research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Role of Visual Perception in Reading Across Fonts and Similar Words in Children with Reading Disabilities.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- Parafoveal letter identification in Russian: Confusion matrices based on error rates.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Multidimensional feature interactions in visual crowding: When configural cues eliminate the polarity advantage.Journal of vision · 2022Article
- Atypical visual field asymmetries in redundancy masking.Journal of vision · 2022Article
- Spatial Attention Enhances Crowded Stimulus Encoding Across Modeled Receptive Fields by Increasing Redundancy of Feature Representations.Neural computation · 2021Article
- The generality of the critical spacing for crowded optotypes: From Bouma to the 21st century.Journal of vision · 2021Article
- Geometrically restricted image descriptors: A method to capture the appearance of shape.Journal of vision · 2021Article
- Hidden by bias: how standard psychophysical procedures conceal crucial aspects of peripheral visual appearance.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Redundancy masking: The loss of repeated items in crowded peripheral vision.Journal of vision · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Many models posit the use of distinctive spatial features to recognize letters of the alphabet, a fundamental component of reading. It has also been hypothesized that when letters are in close proximity, visual crowding may cause features to mislocalize between nearby letters, causing identification errors. Here, we took a data-driven approach to investigate these aspects of textual processing. Using data collected from subjects identifying each letter in thousands of lower-case letter trigrams presented in the peripheral visual field, we found characteristic error patterns in the results suggestive of the use of particular spatial features. Distinctive features were seldom entirely missed, and we found evidence for errors due to doubling, masking, and migration of features. Dependencies both amongst neighboring letters and in the responses revealed the contingent nature of processing letter strings, challenging the most basic models of reading that ignore either crowding or featural decomposition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.