Advertisement
Research Article

Parts, Wholes, and Context in Reading: A Triple Dissociation

  • Denis G. Pelli mail,

    To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: denis.pelli@nyu.edu

    Affiliation: Psychology and Neural Science, New York University, New York, New York, United States of America

    X
  • Katharine A. Tillman

    Affiliation: Psychology and Neural Science, New York University, New York, New York, United States of America

    X
  • Published: August 01, 2007
  • DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000680

Reader Comments (10)

Post a new comment on this article

Base rates of substituting a word by itself, a nearly identical string, or another valid word

Posted by Potsdam_EM_Group on 28 Sep 2007 at 22:11 GMT

Many letters could only be substituted by themselves and all other letters were in some cases substituted by themselves. As a consequence, many words may not have changed at all or only slightly rendering identification easier than in cases with multiple substitutions. Therefore, can the authors tell the percentage of words that were replaced by themselves or very similar strings? Moreover, some substitutions will have resulted in the creation of new valid words (e.g., arc <-> are, bill <-> hill, if <-> it; end <-> and). These cases may have encouraged readers to give incorrect responses. How often did such cases occur?


RE: Base rates of substituting a word by itself, a nearly identical string, or another valid word

DenisPelli replied to Potsdam_EM_Group on 26 Oct 2007 at 17:03 GMT

In a 583-word sample of text used in the experiments with the L knockout applied, 28% of the words did not change, and 3% were cases where substitution resulted in valid (but incorrect) words.

Denis Pelli & Katharine Tillman
http://psych.nyu.edu/pell...