↓ Skip to main content

Letters in the forest: global precedence effect disappears for letters but not for non-letters under reading-like conditions

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Letters in the forest: global precedence effect disappears for letters but not for non-letters under reading-like conditions
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00705
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas Lachmann, Andreas Schmitt, Wouter Braet, Cees van Leeuwen

Abstract

Normally skilled reading involves special processing strategies for letters, which are habitually funneled into an abstract letter code. On the basis of previous studies we argue that this habit leads to the preferred usage of an analytic strategy for the processing of letters, while non-letters are preferably processed via a holistic strategy. The well-known global precedence effect (GPE) seems to contradict to this assumption, since, with compound, hierarchical figures, including letter items, faster responses are observed to the global than to the local level of the figure, as well as an asymmetric interference effect from global to local level. We argue that with letters these effects depend on presentation conditions; only when they elicit the processing strategies automatized for reading, an analytic strategy for letters in contrast to non-letters is to be expected. We compared the GPE for letters and non-letters in central viewing, with the global stimulus size close to the functional visual field in whole word reading (6.5° of visual angle) and local stimuli close to the critical size for fluent reading of individual letters (0.5° of visual angle). Under these conditions, the GPE remained robust for non-letters. For letters, however, it disappeared: letters showed no overall response time advantage for the global level and symmetric congruence effects (local-to-global as well as global-to-local interference). We interpret these results as according to the view that reading is based on resident analytic visual processing strategies for letters.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Finland 1 1%
Malaysia 1 1%
Unknown 85 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 18%
Student > Master 14 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Researcher 7 8%
Professor 6 7%
Other 18 21%
Unknown 18 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 37 43%
Neuroscience 7 8%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 5%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 21 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 March 2015.
All research outputs
#16,721,208
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#18,023
of 34,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,344
of 227,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#275
of 392 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,411 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 227,499 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 392 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.