An Eye-tracking study: Visual word recognition based on corresponding auditory inputs – lowercase mirror letters b/d

Author(s):

Zuzana Šmideková(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2016

Network:

Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)

Format:

Poster

Session Information

ERG SES D 01, Interactive Poster Session

Poster Session

Time:

2016-08-22

13:30-15:00

Room:

OB-E1.17 (ALE 1)

Chair:

Saneeya Qureshi

Contribution

The visual word recognition system recruits neuronal systems originally developed for object perception which are characterized by orientation insensitivity to mirror reversals.

Humans, as well as other primates, have a high tolerance to laterally reversed images (the mirror version). But the mirror version of a letter changes its canonical representation, thereby the orientation insensitivity might lead to erroneous letter identification (Caramazza & Hillis, 1990).

“mirror generalization is an intrinsic property of the primate visual system, which must be unlearned when learning to read” (Dehaene, Cohen, Sigman & Vinckier, 2005, p. 339). In some alphabetic languages lateral reversals of some letters result in different letter representation (e.g., b-d, p-q), and recent behavioural evidence suggests that when individual letters within a word are reversed, readers are highly sensitive to mirror-letter manipulations if the letters are non-reversible (i.e., b/d/p/q; Perea, Moret-Tatay & Panadero, 2011).

Research question: Does the order/position of mirrored letter matters by visual word regnition?

Pilot study conducted in December 2015 in Eye Movement and Reading Laboratory in National Chengchi University during my research stay.

4 participants had to decide which of the two words presented on a screen corresponded to an auditorily presented word
Audio stimulus → Visual stimulus
Visual stimulus: one target (correct word) and one distractor (one or two letters mirrored)

Method

Participants • 4 Taiwanese graduate students from department of Psychology with normal or corrected to normal sight Material • All together 18 trials displaying one target and one distractor word Targets : 6 english seven-letter words – nouns • 3 containing two „b“ letters • 3 containing tvo „d“ letters • All the mirror letters are placed in the middle of the words, non of them is at the begining or in the end of the word Distractors • 3 types created from targets: A) both „mirror“ letters changed (absorber → adsorder) B) second „mirror“ letter changed (absorber → absorder) C) first „mirror“ letter changed (absorber → adsorber) Instructions • Participants after listening to audithory presented word, had to decide between one target and one distractor. • Target and distractor were placed on the right or left side of the computer screen and perticipant´s task was to mark the correct one by saying the number. • Words were marked with index number one or two for their identification. Apparatus • An EyeLink II eye-tracker was used, only the dominant eye was tracked. After the calibration and validation process, participants were presented with eighteen practice trials. • Types of collected data: Fixations no., Fixation onset time relative to trial beginning when the stimulus was shown (msec), Averaged pupil size in the fixation, Averaged X coordination (in pixel), Averaged Y coordination, Fixation duration (msec), Incoming saccade duration (msec), Saccade length (pixel), Blinking duration (msec), ROIs Note: not all the data have not yet been analyzed.

Expected Outcomes

Predictions • Time for recognization of the correct/targed word will be shorter if the distractor will be from the A group (both mirror letters) than if the distractor will be from B or C group. • Time for recognition of the correct/target word will be longer if the presented distractor will be from the group B (second mirror letter) than if the distractor will be from group C. • Less and shorter fixations in ROI (Regions of Interest) of distractor from A group then from B and C group. • More and longer fixations in ROI of distractor from B group then from C group. Averages fixation duration for each type of distractor: • Distractor A (both letters mirrored) - 246,15 msec • Distractor B (second mirrored) - 232,76 msec • Distractor C (first mirrored) - 232,84 msec Limitations of pilot study • Chinese speaking participants • „b“ and „d“ sound similar, tested words containing "p" and "q"? • Choice of the words, participants were not so familiar with all of them • Order of the trials may matter. • Position of the presented words on the screen R/L. • Small index numbers can be also distractors. Future modifications • Different words – czech words • Children as a participants • More participants • Tactile stimulus Predictions in future research • Target words rerognition will require shorter time in the words, which contains the mirror letter, towards which was participant exposed (touching the letter) short before the experiment.

References

Bara, F., Gentaz, E., & Cole´, P. (2004). The visuo-haptic and haptic exploration of letters increases the kindergarten-children’s reading acquisition. Cognitive Development, 19(3), 433–449. Bojko, A. (2013). Eye tracking the user experience: a practical guide to research. Brooklyn: Rosenfeld Media. Bradford, J. (2005). Using multisensory teaching methods. Available from URL: http://www.dyslexia-parent.com/mag30.html Bringing Neuroscience into School. (2013). Euronews. Retrieved May 1, 2015 from http://www.euronews.com/2013/04/30/bringing-neuroscience-into-school/ Caramazza, A. & Hillis, A. (1990). Where Do Semantic Errors Come From? Cortex, 26(1), 95-122 Délégation Paris Michel-Ange. (2009). Touch Helps Make The Connection Between Sight And Hearing. ScienceDaily. Retrieved May 1, 2015 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090318112937.htm Fredembach, B., de Boisferon, A. H., & Gentaz, E. (2009). Learning of Arbitrary Association between Visual and Auditory Novel Stimuli in Adults: The “Bond Effect” of Haptic Exploration. PLoS ONE, 4(3). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004844. Holmqvist, K. (c2011). Eye tracking: a comprehensive guide to methods and measures. (1st ed., xix, 537 s.) Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mayer, R. E. (2010). Unique contributions of eye-tracking research to the study of learning with graphics. Learning and Instruction, 20, 167-171. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372-422. Rayner, K., Li, X., Williams, C. C., Cave, K. R., & Well, A. D. (2007). Eye movements during information processing tasks: individual differences and cultural effects. Vision Research, 47, 2714e2726. Sousa, D. (2001). How the brain learns: a classroom teacher's guide. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press. Sousa, D., & Ansari, D. (2010). Mind, brain & education: neuroscience implications for the classroom. Bloomington, Ind.: Solution Tree.

Author Information

Zuzana Šmideková (presenting / submitting)

Masaryk University

Department of Educational Sciences - Faculty of Arts

Banská Bystrica

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER.

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.