Abstract
In two experiments, hungry and satiated subjects were compared on word recognition for words of three types of content: food, positively emotional, or negatively emotional content. The purpose was to assess whether expanding the size of the parafoveal image would yield patterns of word processing that were similar to those obtained under foveal viewing. Words of 17-mm size were created to take cortical magnification into account. The conditions in Experiment 1 yielded overall high levels of performance, and the conditions in Experiment 2 yielded overall low levels of performance; yet, the usual foveal patterns of word recognition failed to be evident, especially with respect to motivation. In Experiment 2, highly frequent words were significantly more easily recognized than were infrequent words, but the usual facilitation of hunger (as opposed to satiation) was absent for both experiments. The data suggest that foveal and parafoveal viewing lead to two quite distinct forms of lexical processing.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Balota, D. A., & Rayner, K. (1991). Word recognition processes in foveal and parafoveal vision. In D. Besner & G. Humphreys (Eds.), Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition (pp. 198–232). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Erwin, R. J., & Ferguson, E. D. (1979). The effect of food and water deprivation and satiation on recognition. American Journal of Psychology, 92, 611–626.
Ferguson, E. D. (1983). The effect of motivation and word characteristics on recognition. American Journal of Psychology, 96, 253–266.
Ferguson, E. D. (1988). Motivational influences on word recognition: I. Foveal and parafoveal viewing. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 26, 203–205.
Ferguson, E. D. (1989). Motivational influences on word recognition: II. Affective coding. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 27, 307–310.
Ferguson, E. D. (1992). Motivational influences on word recognition: III. Parafoveal processing differs from foveal processing. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 30, 47–50.
Horton, J. C., & Hoyt, W. F. (1991). The representation of the visual field in human striate cortex. Archives of Ophthalmology, 109, 816–824.
Martinez, J. L., Jr., Schulteis, G., & Weinberger, S. B. (1991). How to increase and decrease the strength of memory traces: The effects of drugs and hormones. In J. L. Martinez, Jr, & R. P. Kesner (Eds.), Learning and memory: A biological view (2nd ed., pp. 149–198). San Diego: Academic P
Norman, D. A., & Bobrow, D. G. (1975). On data-limited and resource-limited processes. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 44–64.
Rovamo, J., & Virsu, V. (1979). An estimation and application of the human cortical magnification factor. Experimental Brain Research, 37, 495–510.
Spence, K. W., Farber, E. E., & McFann, H. H. (1956). The relation of anxiety (drive) level to performance in competitional and non-competitional paired-associates learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52, 296–305.
Taylor, J. A. (1956). Drive theory and manifest anxiety. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 303–320.
Thorndike, E. E., & Lorge, I. (1944). The teacher’s book of 30,000 words. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
Tootell, R. B. H., Silverman, M. S., Switkes, E., & De Valois, R. L. (1982). Deoxyglucose analysis of retinotopic organization in primate striate cortex. Science, 218, 902–904.
Underwood, B. J., & Schulz, R. W. (1960). Meaningfulness and verbal learning. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ferguson, E.D. Motivational influences on word recognition: IV. Cortical magnification does not explain parafoveal versus foveal differences. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 31, 602–604 (1993). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03337367
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03337367