SOME VERBAL FACTORS INFLUENCING TACHISTOSCOPIC RECOGNITION OF WORDS.
Item
-
Title
-
SOME VERBAL FACTORS INFLUENCING TACHISTOSCOPIC RECOGNITION OF WORDS.
-
Identifier
-
AAI8401890
-
identifier
-
8401890
-
Creator
-
BUTTACAVOLI, PATRICIA.
-
Contributor
-
William Battersby
-
Date
-
1983
-
Language
-
English
-
Publisher
-
City University of New York.
-
Subject
-
Psychology, Physiological
-
Abstract
-
Recently, tachistoscopic studies have investigated differences in hemispheric functioning in response to simultaneously exposed alphabetical materials. The results of these studies have been equivocal. This inconsistency can be explained by methodological shortcomings including failure to control for directional reading habits and allowing observers to develop field preferences. In addition, these studies can be criticized for reporting only group data; failure to consider the reliability of field asymmetries; and using a single exposure duration.;The present study sought to eliminate these deficiencies by employing the following paradigm. Four dextral observers were tested monocularly in five test sessions. Vertically mounted words and nonsense syllables were presented bilaterally at each of four exposure durations using a tachistoscope that illuminated the two half-fields equally. There were four stimulus presentation conditions--words in both half-fields (WW); a word in the right half-field- a nonsense syllable in the left (WN); nonsense syllable in the right half-field- a word in the left (NW); and nonsense syllables in both half-fields (NN). All stimuli were presented at a retinal eccentricity of 3(DEGREES) from fixation.;The task was to identify verbally any word and its locations (RVF or LVF). Nonsense syllables did not have to be reported.;Each test session was divided into two parts (one for each eye) of 160 trials each. At each of four exposure durations, ten cards for each condition (WW, WN, NW, NN) were presented. Type of stimulus material, exposure duration, and field of presentation were randomly varied. The eye initially tested was counterbalanced across sessions.;The results do not seem to support the hemispheric specialization hypothesis. While all observers did correctly identify more words in the RVF than in the LVF, these differences were not significant at the group level. When stimulus conditions were compared, scores for the WN condition were significantly greater than those for the WW condition.;The results on an individual level reflected the group findings, i.e. most scores failed to achieve statistical significance when fields of presentation were compared, and most scores were significant when the two exposure conditions were compared.
-
Type
-
dissertation
-
Source
-
PQT Legacy CUNY.xlsx
-
degree
-
Ph.D.
-
Program
-
Psychology
