The SPLIT Model of Visual Word Recognition: Complementary Connectionist and Statistical Cognitive Modelling
We review three problems in the connectionist modelling of visual word recognition: the restriction of models to monosyllabic words, the difficulty in assimilating fixation data from the reading of continuous text, and the abstractness of the accounts of dyslexic reading. We show how a model of visual word recognition, the SPLIT model, can be anatomically based on the precise splitting of the foveal projection about a vertical meridian. The SPLIT model has a limited instantiation as a connectionist model and a wider instantiation as a conventional statistical analysis. This combination of two modelling paradigms, both based on foveal splitting, gives the best coverage of word recognition phenomena.
KeywordsWord Recognition Connectionist Modelling Visual Word Recognition Right Hemisphere Lexical Processing
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.Harm, M.W. & Seidenberg, M.S.(in press). Phonology, reading acquisition and dyslexia: Insights from connectionist models Psychological Review Google Scholar
- Plaut, D.C. & McClelland,J.L. (1993). Generalization with componential attractors: word and nonword reading in an attractor network. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
- 5.Shillcock, R.C. & Monaghan, P. (submitted). Inter-and intra-hemispheric processing and the modelling of visual word recognition.Google Scholar
- 9.Shillcock, R.C. & Monaghan, P. (1998). Using anatomical information to enrich the connectionist modelling of normal and impaired visual word recognition. Proceedings of the 1998 Cognitive Science Society Conference, Wisconsin, 945–950.Google Scholar
- 10.Shillcock, R., Ellison, T.M. & Monaghan, P. (submitted). Eye-fixation behaviour, lexical storage and visual word recognition in a split processing model.Google Scholar
- 11.Forster, K.I. & Gartlan, G. (1975). Hash coding and search processes in lexical access. Paper presented at the Second Experimental Psychology Conference, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
- 17.Coltheart, M. (1980). Deep dyslexia: a right-hemisphere hypothesis. In (M. Coltheart, K. Patterson & J.C. Marshall, eds.)Deep Dyslexia. Routledge and Kegan Paul. Google Scholar
- 19.Shillcock, R. & Gontijo, P.F.D. (1998). Noses, roses, Names and names: Reinterpreting a Deficit in Initial Letter Identificationms Google Scholar
- 20.O’Regan, J.K. (1990). Eye movements and reading. In (E. Kowler, ed.) Eye movements and their role in visual and cognitive processes, Elsevier.Google Scholar