Research on the distinctive features of letters has been inconclusive. Investigators may have overlooked individual variations in their data which would have supported feature-extraction hypotheses but were concealed by analyses which averaged data into group means. Response latencies from a matching discrimination task with the 26 English capital letters were analyzed with INDSCAL, a multidimensional scaling procedure which weights individual contributions to a psychological space. Underlying dimensions were linearity, curvature, angularity, and closure. The solution disclosed that individuals utilized these features differentially in the visual discriminations. The results suggest that future research in visual feature extraction will benefit from the examination of individual variations in the perceptual process.
References
1.
BoxG. E. P.Some theories on quadratic forms applied in the study of analysis of variance problems: II. Effects of inequality of variance and covariance between errors in the two-way classification. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1954, 25, 484–498.
2.
CarrollJ. D.ChangJ. J.How to use INDSCAL, a computer program for canonical decomposition of N-way tables and individual differences in multidimensional scaling. Murray Hill, N. J.: Bell Laboratories, 1969.
3.
CarrollJ. D.ChangJ. J.Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via an N-way generalization of “Eckart-Young” decomposition. Psychometrika, 1970, 35, 283–319.
4.
FisherD. F.MontyR. A.GlucksbergS.Visual confusion matrices: Fact or artifact?Journal of Psychology, 1969, 71, 111–125.
5.
GeyerL. H.A two-channel theory of short term visual storage. (Doctoral dissertation, SUNY at Buffalo, 1970)Dissertation Abstracts International, 1970, 31, 5660B. (University Microfilms No. 71–7165)
6.
GeyerL. H.DewaldC. G.Feature lists and confusion matrices. Perception and Psychophysics, 1973, 14, 471–482.
7.
GibsonE. J.Principles of perceptual learning and development. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1969.
8.
GibsonE. J.The ontogeny of reading. American Psychologist, 1970, 25, 136–144.
9.
GibsonE. J.GibsonJ. J.PickA. D.OsserH.A developmental study of the discrimination of letterlike forms. Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology, 1962, 55, 897–905.
10.
GibsonE. J.OsserH.SchiffW.SmithJ.An analysis of critical features of letters tested by a confusion matrix. In LevinH.GibsonE. J.LevinH.GibsonE. J.GibsonJ. J. (Eds.), A basic research program on reading. (Cornell & USOE Joint Project 63) Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell Univer., 1963. Pp. 1–20.
11.
GibsonE. J.SchapiroF.YonasA.Confusion matrices for graphic patterns obtained with a latency measure. In LevinH.GibsonE. J.LevinH.GibsonE. J.GibsonJ. J. (Eds.), The analysis of reading skill: A program of basic and applied research. (Cornell & USOE Joint Project 5–1213) Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell Univer., 1968. Pp. 76–96.
12.
HodgeD. C.Legibility of a uniform-strokewidth alphabet: I. Relative legibility of upper and lower case letters. Journal of Engineering Psychology, 1962, 1, 34–46.
13.
HymanJ.CohenS. A.The effect of verticality as a stimulus property on the letter discrimination of young children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1975, 8, 41–50.
KolersP. A.Pattern-analyzing disability in poor readers. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1975. 14, 282–290.
16.
LaBergeD.SamuelsS. J.Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 1974, 6, 292–323.
17.
LaugheryK. R.Computer simulation of short-term memory: A component decay model. In BowerG. T.SpenceJ. T. (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory. Vol. 3- New York: Academic Press, 1969. Pp. 135–200.
18.
MarchbanksG.LevinH.Cues by which children recognize words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1965, 56, 57–61.
19.
MyersJ. L.Fundamentals of experimental design. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1972.
20.
NodineC. F.SimmonsF. G.Processing distinctive features in the differentiation of letterlike symbols. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974, 103, 21–28.
21.
NodineC. F.SteuerleN. L.Development of perceptual and cognitive strategies for differentiating graphemes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1973, 97, 158–166.
22.
RaynerK.Developmental changes in word recognition strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1976, 68, 323–329.
23.
RaynerK.HagelbergE. M.Word recognition cues for beginning and skilled readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1975, 20, 444–455.
SunshineP. M.DivestaF. J.Effects of density and format on letter discrimination by beginning readers with different learning styles. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1976, 68, 15–19.
26.
ThorsonG.An alternative for judging confusability of visual letters. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1976, 42, 116–118.
27.
TimkoH. G.Configuration as a cue in the word recognition of beginning readers. Journal of Experimental Education, 1970, 39, 68–69.
28.
TimkoH. G.Letter position in trigram discrimination by beginning readers. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1972, 35, 153–154.
29.
TownsendJ. T.Alphabetic confusion: A test of models for individuals. Perception & Psychophysics, 1971, 9, 449–454. (a)
30.
TownsendJ. T.Theoretical analysis of an alphabetic confusion matrix. Perception & Psychophysics, 1971, 9, 40–49. (b)
31.
TukeyJ. W.One degree of freedom for nonadditivity. Biometrics, 1949, 5, 232–242.
32.
VolkmannF. G.PufallP. B.Adjustments of visual tilt as a function of age. Perception & Psychophysics, 1972, 11, 187–192.
33.
WilliamsJ. P.BlumbergE. L.WilliamsD. V.Cues used in visual word perception. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1970, 61, 310–315.
