Abstract
AbstractReading comparisons across transparent and opaque orthographies indicate critical differences that may reveal the mechanisms involved in orthographic decoding across orthographies. Here, we address the role of criterion and speed of processing in accounting for performance differences across languages. We used binary tasks involving orthographic (words–pseudowords), and non-orthographic materials (female–male faces), and analyzed results based on Ratcliff’s Diffusion model. In the first study, 29 English and 28 Italian university students were given a lexical decision test. English observers made more errors than Italian observers while showing generally similar reaction times. In terms of the diffusion model, the two groups differed in the decision criterion: English observers used a lower criterion. There was no overall cross-linguistic difference in processing speed, but English observers showed lower values for words (and a smaller lexicality effect) than Italians. In the second study, participants were given a face gender judgment test. Female faces were identified slower than the male ones with no language group differences. In terms of the diffusion model, there was no difference between groups in drift rate and boundary separation. Overall, the new main finding concerns a difference in decision criterion limited to the orthographic task: English individuals showed a more lenient criterion in judging the lexicality of the items, a tendency that may explain why, despite lower accuracy, they were not slower. It is concluded that binary tasks (and the Diffusion model) can reveal cross-linguistic differences in orthographic processing which would otherwise be difficult to detect in standard single-word reading tasks.
Funder
NIH Clinical Center
Università degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference56 articles.
1. Albonico A, Martelli M, Bricolo E, Frasson E, Daini R (2018) Focusing and orienting spatial attention differently modulate crowding in central and peripheral vision. J vis 18(3):4–4
2. Baayen RH, Piepenbrock R, Gulikers L (1995) CELEX2 LDC96L14. Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia
3. Bertinetto PM, Burani C, Laudanna A, Marconi L, Ratti D, Rolando C, Thornton AM (2005) Corpus e Lessico di frequenza dell’italiano scritto (CoLFIS) https://www.istc.cnr.it/en/grouppage/colfis. Accessed Aug 2022
4. Bogacz R, Brown E, Moehlis J, Cohen JD (2006) The physics of optimal decision making: a formal analysis of models of performance in two-alternative forced-choice tasks. Psychol Rev 113:700–765. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.4.700
5. Boywitt CD, Rummel J (2012) A diffusion model analysis of task interference effects in prospective memory. Mem Cogn 40(1):70–82. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0128-6
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献