ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2024
On the distinction between position and order information when processing strings of characters.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Character Position Encoding of Parafoveal Semantic Previews Is Flexible in Chinese Reading.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Letters, Words, Sentences, and Reading.Journal of cognition · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To probe the processing of gaze-dependent positional information and gaze-independent order information when matching strings of characters, we compared effects of visual similarity (hypothesized to affect gaze-centered position coding) with the effects of character transpositions (hypothesized to affect the processing of gaze-independent order information). In Experiment 1, we obtained empirical measures of visual similarity for pairs of characters, separately for uppercase consonants and keyboard symbols. These similarity values were then used in Experiment 2 to create pairs of four-character stimuli (four letters or four symbols) that could differ by substituting one character with a different character from the same category that was visually similar (e.g., FJDK-FJBK) or dissimilar (e.g., FJVK-FJBK). We also compared the effects of transposing two characters (e.g., FBJK-FJBK) with substituting two characters (e.g., FHSK-FJBK). "Different" responses were harder to make in the single substitution condition when the substituted character was visually similar, and this effect was not conditioned by character type. On the other hand, transposition costs (i.e., greater difficulty in detecting a difference with transpositions compared with double substitutions) were greater for letters compared with symbols. We conclude that visual similarity mainly affects the generic gaze-dependent processing of complex visual features, and that the encoding of letter order involves a mechanism that is specific to reading.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38453776What 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.