Sentence examples for word recognition process from inspiring English sources

The model decouples the decision when to move the eyes from the word recognition process.

Overall, we found that a bilateral network of frontal and temporal regions is involved in spoken word recognition, and that activity within this network is modulated by different cognitive components of the word recognition process.

When a person sees the input word lost, its orthographic neighbors most, list, loft, and lose are thought to become activated as well and to compete with the target word in the word recognition process.

The results of the behavioral component of the study reaffirm, for a new stimulus set and for a different task, the nonword point effect first reported by Marslen-Wilson (1984), and provide new evidence for optimal efficiency in the spoken word recognition process (Marslen-Wilson and Welsh 1978; Marslen-Wilson and Tyler 1981; Norris and McQueen 2008).

This approach may enable the investigation of specific visual word recognition processes during self-paced natural sentence reading (e.g., parafoveal preprocessing), which were previously inaccessible with fMRI.

Our study is the first step in investigating specific visual word recognition processes during self-paced natural sentence reading via simultaneous eye tracking and fMRI, thus aiming at an ecologically valid measurement of reading processes.

It is up to future studies to deal with these challenges and to refine and advance the fixation-related fMRI approach where necessary to allow the investigation of specific visual word recognition processes during self-paced natural sentence reading.

The resilience of word frequency effects in a dual-task paradigm, where a distractor task is assumed to interfere with early stages of word recognition processes, was presented as further evidence for a late locus of word frequency effects (McCann et al., 2000).

Although there has been some debate about the exact locus of the word frequency effect (e.g. Balota & Chumbley, 1984; Mccann et al., 1988; Paap & Johansen, 1994), recent behavioural studies have provided strong evidence that early word recognition processes are sensitive to word frequency (Allen et al., 2005; Cleland et al., 2006).

To avoid these complexities of L2 production and eliminate the influence of overt word production processes, a manual task is used in the current studies, allowing for the investigation of how word recognition processes, as modulated by language proficiency, determine Stroop performance.

Or, underdeveloped spelling/sound connections might allow for a greater influence of semantic information on slow word-recognition processes (Plaut & Booth, 2000).