The SPLIT Model of Visual Word Recognition: Complementary Connectionist and Statistical Cognitive Modelling

  • Richard Shillcock
  • Padraic Monaghan
  • T. Mark Ellison
Conference paper
Part of the Perspectives in Neural Computing book series (PERSPECT.NEURAL)

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Entropy Retina Coherence Defend Dyslexia 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Seidenberg, M. S. & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Plaut, D.C., McClelland, J.L., Seidenberg, M.S. & Patterson, K. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological Review, 103, 56–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Harm, M.W. & Seidenberg, M.S.(in press). Phonology, reading acquisition and dyslexia: Insights from connectionist models Psychological Review Google Scholar
  4. 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. 5.
    Shillcock, R.C. & Monaghan, P. (submitted). Inter-and intra-hemispheric processing and the modelling of visual word recognition.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brysbaert, M. (1994). Interhemispheric transfer and the processing of foveally presented stimuli.Behavioural Brain Research,64,151–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sugishita, M., Hamilton, CR., Sakuma, I., Hemmi, I. (1994). Hemispheric representation of the central retina of commissurotomized subjects. Neuropsychologia,32, 399–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fendrich, R. & Gazzaniga, M.S. (1989). Evidence of foveal splitting in a commissurotomy patient. Neuropsychologia, 27, 273–281 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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. 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. 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
  12. 12.
    Merikle, P.M. & Coltheart, M. & Lowe, D.G. (1971). On the selective effects of a pattern masking stimulus. Canadian Journal of Psychology,25, 264–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jordan, T.R. (1990). Presenting words without interior letters: Superiority over single letters and influence of postmask boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 893–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mohr, B., Pulvermüller, F. & Zaidel, E. (1994). Lexical decision after left, right and bilateral presentation of function words, content words and non-words: Evidence for interhemispheric interaction. Neuropsychologia, 32, 105–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Davidson, RJ & Saron, CD. (1992). Evoked potential measures of interhemispheric transfer time in reading disabled and normal boys. Developmental Neuropsychology,8, 261–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Coltheart, M., Curtis, B., Atkins, P. & Haller, M. (1993). Models of reading aloud: Dual-route and parallel-distributed-processing approaches. Psychological Review, 100, 589–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 18.
    Patterson, K. & Wilson, B. (1990). A ROSE is a ROSE or a NOSE: A deficit in initial letter identificationCognitive Neuropsychology 7(5/6), 447–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shillcock, R. & Gontijo, P.F.D. (1998). Noses, roses, Names and names: Reinterpreting a Deficit in Initial Letter Identificationms Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 21.
    Rayner, K. & McConkie, G.W. (1976). What guides a reader’s eye movements?Vision Research, 16, 829–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McConkie, G.W. & Rayner, K. (1975). The span of the effective stimulus during a fixation in reading. Perception & Psychophysics 17, 578–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brysbaert, M., Vitu, F. & Schroyens, W. (1996). The right visual field advantage and the optimal viewing position effect: On the relation between foveal and parafoveal word recognition. Neuropsychology, 10, 385–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Shillcock
    • 1
  • Padraic Monaghan
    • 1
  • T. Mark Ellison
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Cognitive ScienceUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghScotland

Personalised recommendations