Advanced

Assessing the role of different spatial frequencies in word perception by good and poor readers

Patching, Geoffrey LU and Jordan, Timothy (2005) In Memory & Cognition 33(6). p.961-971
Abstract
Numerous studies indicate that dyslexic and nondyslexic individuals exhibit different patterns of sensitivity to spatial frequency. However, the extension of this effect to normal (nondyslexic) adults of good and poor reading abilities and the role played by different spatial frequencies in word perception have yet to be determined. In this study, using normal (nondyslexic) adults, we assessed reading ability, spatial frequency sensitivity, and perception of spatially filtered words and nonwords (using a twoalternative forced choice paradigm to avoid artifactual influences of nonperceptual guesswork). Good and poor readers showed different patterns of spatial frequency sensitivity. However, no differences in accuracy of word and nonword... (More)
Numerous studies indicate that dyslexic and nondyslexic individuals exhibit different patterns of sensitivity to spatial frequency. However, the extension of this effect to normal (nondyslexic) adults of good and poor reading abilities and the role played by different spatial frequencies in word perception have yet to be determined. In this study, using normal (nondyslexic) adults, we assessed reading ability, spatial frequency sensitivity, and perception of spatially filtered words and nonwords (using a twoalternative forced choice paradigm to avoid artifactual influences of nonperceptual guesswork). Good and poor readers showed different patterns of spatial frequency sensitivity. However, no differences in accuracy of word and nonword perception were found between good and poor readers, despite their differences in spatial frequency sensitivity. Indeed, both reading abilities showed the same superior perceptibility for spatially filtered words over nonwords across different spatial frequency bands. These findings indicate that spatial frequency sensitivity differences extend to normal (nondyslexic) adult readers and that a range of spatial frequencies can be used for word perception by good and poor readers. However, spatial frequency sensitivity may not accurately reveal an individual’s ability to perceive words. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
Memory & Cognition
volume
33
issue
6
pages
961 - 971
publisher
Psychonomic Society
external identifiers
  • scopus:33645089226
ISSN
1532-5946
DOI
10.3758/BF03193205
language
English
LU publication?
no
id
c7946736-2a09-4f6e-91ef-5ebfd462867f (old id 2205473)
date added to LUP
2011-12-16 11:22:22
date last changed
2017-10-29 03:24:09
@article{c7946736-2a09-4f6e-91ef-5ebfd462867f,
  abstract     = {Numerous studies indicate that dyslexic and nondyslexic individuals exhibit different patterns of sensitivity to spatial frequency. However, the extension of this effect to normal (nondyslexic) adults of good and poor reading abilities and the role played by different spatial frequencies in word perception have yet to be determined. In this study, using normal (nondyslexic) adults, we assessed reading ability, spatial frequency sensitivity, and perception of spatially filtered words and nonwords (using a twoalternative forced choice paradigm to avoid artifactual influences of nonperceptual guesswork). Good and poor readers showed different patterns of spatial frequency sensitivity. However, no differences in accuracy of word and nonword perception were found between good and poor readers, despite their differences in spatial frequency sensitivity. Indeed, both reading abilities showed the same superior perceptibility for spatially filtered words over nonwords across different spatial frequency bands. These findings indicate that spatial frequency sensitivity differences extend to normal (nondyslexic) adult readers and that a range of spatial frequencies can be used for word perception by good and poor readers. However, spatial frequency sensitivity may not accurately reveal an individual’s ability to perceive words.},
  author       = {Patching, Geoffrey and Jordan, Timothy},
  issn         = {1532-5946},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {6},
  pages        = {961--971},
  publisher    = {Psychonomic Society},
  series       = {Memory & Cognition},
  title        = {Assessing the role of different spatial frequencies in word perception by good and poor readers},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03193205},
  volume       = {33},
  year         = {2005},
}