Citation
Monocular vision and word-length as factors in differential word recognition ..

Material Information

Title:
Monocular vision and word-length as factors in differential word recognition ..
Creator:
Melville, Joseph Robert, 1929-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
iii, 66 leaves : ; 28 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Analysis of variance ( jstor )
Automated word recognition ( jstor )
Binocular vision ( jstor )
Eyes ( jstor )
Grade levels ( jstor )
Reading comprehension ( jstor )
Retina ( jstor )
Tachistoscopes ( jstor )
Visual fields ( jstor )
Words ( jstor )
Perception ( fast )
Recognition (Psychology) ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 35-36).
General Note:
Manuscript copy.
General Note:
Biography.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
This item is presumed in the public domain according to the terms of the Retrospective Dissertation Scanning (RDS) policy, which may be viewed at http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00007596/00001. The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact the RDS coordinator (ufdissertations@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
13621755 ( OCLC )
ocm13621755

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text













MONOCULAR VISION AND WORD-LENGTH AS FACTORS

IN DIFFERENTIAL WORD RECOGNITION







By

JOSEPH R. MELVILLE


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY









UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
JANUARY, 1957















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


One hundred thirty people were directly Involved in the preparation of this dissertation. One hundred thirty sincere *Thank you'sa are due.

The one hundred twenty subjects who donated an hour of time each are especially to be thanked. My wife and my children deserve a great deal of credit for putting up with me during the course of the study, Mr. Stanley Spiegel and Mr. Victor Chew were most helpful In checking for statistical accuracy.

But particular thanks go to my supervisory committee: Dr. D. Bethlingshafer, Chairman; Dr, E. D. Hinckley; Dr, E. P. Horn*; Dr. A. K. Kurtz; and Dr, J, W. Oliver. The suggestions and advice of each are incorporated below.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTROICTION I o � � . , � . . . . � � � . . . � i PROBLEM . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . , . 12
SUBJECTs 15 MATERIALS AND APPARATUS . . . . . . 16 PRO CEIDRE . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 . . . 20

RESLT$ AND CONCLUSIONS *.. . . .. 24 DISCUSSION 9 o, � 3 0 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . , . o . . . . . 33

LIST OF REFERENCES . . . . . . . � � . . . . . , 35

APPENDIX 1 ., * 9 . 9 9 , * 4 0 o o * * . . 38


APPENDIX 1II . , . . . � . . . . . . . � . � 58
APPENDX IV. . . , * * * * , . , . . . . � . . 58 APPENDIX IV 0 . � � . � . . � � o . . . . � � � 80 APPENDIX V �63













INTRODUCTION


1. Differential word .Recognition
Efficiency in visual word recognition depends upon many factors. The present study is related to the general factor of retinal locus.

In The Organization of Behavior, Hebb (6) referred to a study by Mishkin and Forgays, later reported more fully by the authors (12). The essential finding was that English words exposed briefly to the peripheral parts of

the retina were recognised more easily when falling on the left hemi-retinas rather than on the right hemi-retines. The term 'differential word recognition' was used to describe the observed phenomenon.
Hebb accepted this result (as did Mishkin and

Forgays) as evidence for his general theory. In terms of this theory differential word recognition Is explained as follows: (1) perception depends largely upon previous experience; (2) English print reads from left to right, and, in reading, the greater part of the peripheral recognition activity is directed toward words to the right of a given fixation point; (3) words to the right of a fixation point are projected on the left hemi-retinas; (4) thus, during










reading, the left hemi-retinas receive more recognition training than the right hemi-retinaes; (5) therefore, words projected on the left hemi-retinas will be more easily recognized than words projected on the right hemi-retinas.

The Mishkin and Forgays study (12) consisted of four experiments. In Experiment I eight-letter English words were exposed briefly to 16 adult subjects. The fixation point was 24 inches from the subject, and the words were presented randomly in the following positions (measured from the center of the word to the fixation point): 1- inches above, 1- inches below, 2 inches to the right, or 2 inches to the left. In a second series the words always appeared in the same place, and the fixation point was shifted at random among the above four locations; this was done as a control for attention factors. Controls for familiarity of prefixes and suffixes, shifts in fixation, and familiarity with the task were observed. It was found that English words were recognized significantly better in the lower half of the visual field and in the right half of the visual field.
Experiment II was intended to control for unidirectional factors favoring the right half of the visual field, such as differences in acuity between the separate halves of the retinas, selective attention to the right half of











the visual field, an anisotropy of visual space, and dominance of the left occipital cortex, These factors were attacked indirectly as follows: 19 subjects, aged 12 to 24, who knew both English and Yiddish were shown English and Yiddish words in the manner of the first series of Experiment I. English words were recognized significantly better on the right; Yiddish words (Yiddish print reads from right to left) were recognized slightly but not significantly

better on the left. The authors reasoned that if any of the above unidirectional factors had been important, all of the words would have been recognized more easily on the right; they concluded that such factors were not important in this situation.

In Experiment III an attempt was made to determine the relative Importance of the first and last letters of words in word recognition. Using eight-letter English

words, Mishkin and Forgays blurred either the first four or the last four letters by pencilling over them. They found no significant difference in recognition between words with blurred beginnings and words with blurred endings.

Experiment IV was conducted In order to determine the retinal loci In which differential word recognition might be observed. English words were presented at various distances to the right or left of a fixation point. At two










locations significant differential word recognition was
found; the authors concluded that differential word recognition occurs when words are centered approximately 10 to 40 to the right or left of a fixation point.

In summary, the Mishkin and Forgays conclusions were as follows:
(1) The accuracy of word recognition depends largely

upon the location of the retinal area upon which the words are projected.

(2) Reading results In special training of certain parts of each left hemi-retina.

(3) Word recognition provides an exception to a general

visual equipotentiality.

(4) The left cerebral hemisphere is developed by reading English, and the right cerebral hemisphere Is developed by reading Yiddish.

In a follow-up experiment Forgays (5) investigated
some developmental aspects of differential word recognition. He reasoned that If the phenomenon depends upon the slow development of cell assemblies in the course of experience In reading, it should be less pronounced with young children than with adults. He used 6 male and 6 female subjects at each grade level from the second to the tenth and in each of

the first three years of college. The subjects were shown










common Fnglish three- and four-letter words at an exposure time of 150 milliseconds. The words were centered either 1-1' inches to the right or 1-1 inches to the left of the fixation point of an apparatus similar to that used by Mishkin and Forgays (12). Each word was presented 5 times on the right and 5 times on the left in random order. Up to about the sixth- or seventh-grade there was no significant or consistent difference in favor of either side of the visual field. Above this grade level the right half of the visual field gained an Increasing recognition advantage over the left half. Analysis of variance yielded significant

figures for Increase in total number of words recognized with increasing grade level, for superiority of recognition in the right visual field, and for interaction of superiority of recognition in the right visual field with increasing grade level, Forgays concluded that his hypothesis was supported,

Orbach (13) modified Experiment 11 of the Mishkin and Forgays study (12). Thirty-two readers of English and Jewish were shown eight-letter English and Jewish words at a distance of 7 feet. The words were presented in random order either 40 46 to the left or 40 46 to the right of a fixation point. Exposure times (constant for each subject) varied from 20 to 100 milliseconds between subjects to allow










recognition by the slower subjects. Two months later the subjects were recalled and shown five-letter words centered 30 from the fixation point under similar conditions* English words were recognized significantly better on the right, and Jewish words were recognized slightly better on the right. Orbach then divided his subjects into 2 groups: 20 subjects who had learned English before Jewish and 12

subjects who had learned Jewish earlier than, or at the same time as, English. The "Jewish-f irstn group recognized Jewish words significantly better on the left, and the "English-first" group recognized Jewish words significantly better on the right. He reasoned that the earlier training was the more important and concluded that the differential training hypothesis was supported.


2. Views O11osed to that of Hebb

Each of the above authors makes specific critical

reference to the theories of one or more of the following: K. S. Lashley, K. Koffka, and W. K~hler. The specific point of controversy is the doctrine of equipotentiality. One view attacked is that of Lashley (11) to the effect that 4 . . . the explanation of perceptual generalization is to be sought In the primitive organization of the nervous tissue, rather than in any elaborate construction of transcortical associative connections or of higher










coordination centers." Koffka (9) holds a similar view.

Hebb holds that the findings with regard to differential word recognition argue against unqualified acceptance of the doctrine of equipotentiality, which would predict no difference in recognition of the same words at equal distances to the right or left of a fixation point. He maintains that perceptual generalization is largely learned rather than Innate. The common finding of visual equipotentiality is explained by Hebb's theory as the result of relatively uniform stimulation of the parts of the retina except in the special case of reading.


3. Ixperimental results in Similar Studies

Although there have been relatively few studies In the specific area of differential word recognition, a number of other studies have Investigated differences in recognition between the right and left halves of the visual field. It should be pointed out, however, that Mishkin and Forgays are emphatic in their restriction of the term 'differential word recognition' to word recognition at certain

peripheral angles.

Anderson and Crosland (1, 2, 3) carefully Investlgated such factors as retinal locus, eye-dominance, and

handedness in studies of the visual span for briefly










exposed groups of letters. They used 120 subjects balanced in handedness, eye-dominance, and sex. The stimuli consisted of cards printed with 9 letters in random order. One-third of the cards were printed so that the fixation point (in a modified Dodge tachistoscope) would fall over the fifth or center letter; these cards were designated 'center-prints'. Another third of the cards were printed so that the fixation point fell over the first or left-most letter; these were called 'right-prints'. The remainder, called 'left-prints', were printed so that the fixation point fell over the ninth or right-most letter. They found

(1) that right-eyed subjects excelled in the left visual field and left-eyed subjects excelled In the right field,

(2) that left-handed subjects were superior in the right visual field and right-handed subjects were superior In the left field, (3) that the effects of handedness were in the same direction as those of eye-dominance but were not as great, and (4) that all subjects were handicapped under the condition of left-print but left-eyed subjects were the

-most distressed.

Huey (7) reported In an early study that "if a context is unknown, the items grasped will lie to the right of the fixation point and that if it t kao!, perception will apply largely to the left of the fixation point. He found










that good readers attend more often to the area to the left of a fixation point and that poor readers attend more often to the area to the right of a fixation point in reading.

In the case of tachistoscopic recognition of lines of print the tendency was toward better recognition of words to the right of the fixation point; Huey attributed this finding

to the greater significance of word-beginnings for words on the right, pointing out that the first letter in a word is extremely important. In one experiment he found that words with their first halves deleted were read at the rate of

0.33 word per second and that words with their last halves deleted were read at the rate of 0.49 word per second; however, he gives no data regarding the significance of this difference.

LaGrone and Holland (10) reported results of their studies of a group of second-grade school children. They found that right-eyedness was related positively to righthandedness, intelligence, reading ability, inferiority of perceptual accuracy in the right visual field, and superiority in the lef-t visual field. Similar results were found for right-handed children. Reading ability was found to be negatively related to superiority in the right visual field; superior readers were more accurate in the left field.










Poffenberger (14) studied reaction times to a light presented to various portions of the retina. He found that reaction time was consistently faster when the light fell on either nasal retina rather than on either temporal retina. He concluded that the nasal retinas are more efficient in recognition than the temporal retinas.


4. Possible Factors in Differential Word Recognition

Some of the experimental results given in the preceding section suggest that factors other than differential training of the left hemi-retinas may play a part in differential word recognition.

An immediately evident suggestion comes from the work of Husy (7). With words on the right of a fixation point the important first letters are closer to the fixation point (and fall closer to the more efficient central parts of the retina) than with words on the left. It will be remembered that Mishkin and Forgays (12) found no differences in recognition when the first half or the last half of a word was blurred, but Huey found a large difference when the first or last half was deleted. The relative Importance of word-beginnings might be a factor in differential word recognition.

The results of Anderson and Crosland (1, 2, 3) end










of LeGrone and Holland (10) in the case of letters and numerals seem to indicate a possible effect by eye-dominance upon differences in recognition between the halves of the

visual field,

The cited studies of differential word recognition have all used binocular vision. It will be remembered that Anderson and Crosland found eye-dominance effects in monocular letter recognition, and it should be noted that Poffenberger found faster reaction times for the nasal retInas. Monocular vision might be a factor in differential word recognition.

A number of other factors might reasonably affect differential word recognition scores. In the interests of brevity they will simply be listed. Situational factors include Illumination of room and screen, exposure time for the words, size of words, type of tachistoscope, style of print, distance from word to subject, word frequency, Instructions, and scoring methods. Organismic factors include set or attention, reading ability, age, sex, Intelligence, education, and various visual abilities and disabilities.

In the present study these factors will be either Investigated or controlled.













PROBLEM


Some of the studies cited above indicate that factors other than differential training may play a part in differential word recognition. -e have listed several such factors. The purpose of the present study is to test hypotheses about two of them: monocular vision and wordbeginnings. Since data having a bearing on some of the other possible factors will be obtained, such data will be

presented also.

The theoretical point at issue is the doctrine of equipotentiality. If differential word recognition could be shown to depend upon Innate structural characteristics of the eye or upon characteristics of the visual stimulus

object, the force of Hebb's (6) argument against the doctrine would be reduced. The doctrine would allow (1) differences In response by retinal areas of different acuity and (2) differences in response to different stimulus patterns. The first hypothesis, below, is related to the first of these differences; the second hypothesis is related to both of then.

The studies of Anderson and Crosland (1, 2, 3) and of LaGrone and Holland (10) suggest possible effects of











eye-dominance and of the eye used (right, left, or both together). Poffenberger (14) reported that the nasal retinas exhibit faster reaction time to a light than the temporal retinas; If this finding could be generalized to word recognition, it would indicate better recognition on the left by the left eye and on the right by the right eye. It was decided to investigate the effects of the eye used, checkIng for possible effects of eye-dominance. The hypothesis of Experiment 1 is as follows: In a differential word recognition situation the left eye will recognize words better on the left and the right eye will recognize words better on the right.

Huey's (7) arguments concerning the effects of

word-beginnings suggest that longer words will tend to show greater differential word recognition. The advantage In word-begLnnings for longer words over shorter words to the right of a fixation point may be illustrated with the following diagramt

(Fixation
point)

A
already � already
cut out
C D










The ratio A/B Is larger than the ratio C/D; that is, the beginnings of the longer words on the right fall relatively closer to the center of the retina (in an area of more efficient recognition). If word-beginnings are more Important to recognition than word-endings, we would expect a larger right-left difference in recognition scores for longer words. It was decided to Investigate this factor by using three- and seven-letter words. The hypothesis of Fxperiment 2 is as follows: Sven-letter words will show greater differential word recognition than three-letter words.













SUBJECTS


One hundred twenty University of Florida students

served as subjects. Eighty-one subjects were selected from

the total group by use of pre-established criteria to form the *Sample* group for testing the two hypotheses. The remaining 39 subjects constituted the *Non-sample* group.
The selection criteria for the sample group were as follows:

1, Age: 18 through 26
2. Education: college undergraduate

3. Visual ability (Keystone Visual 8kills Tests I-VII):
a. no failure of simultaneous vision
b. no noticeable vertical muscular Imbalance
c. lateral muscular balance scores not to exceed
the limits of 7 and 11 in the far-point test
d. no failure of far-point fusion
e. minimum acuity score of 5 with each eye in the
far-point test
f, minimum stereopsis score of 9
4. Eye-dominance: the first 27 subjects In each of the
three eye-dominance groups (left, intermediate, and
right) to meet the first three criteria.

Sixty men and 21 women met these criteria; 25 subjects

failed to meet the first three, and 14 more were rejected by the fourth.

The subject groups are described more fully In Appendix II.













MATERIALS AND APPARATUS


1. Keystone Visual Skills Tests
2. Crider Eye-dominanee Test
3. Word-recognition Apparatus 4. Mimeographed Record Forms
5. Room with Controlled Lighting

1. A Keystone Ophthalmic Telebinocular with Keystone Visual Skills Tests I-VII and X-XIII (8) provided measures of visual ability.

2. Crider's (4) eye-dominance test provided measures of sighting dominance.

3. The word-recognition apparatus Included four major components as follows:

a. A stable, adjustable head-rest and blinder combination was arranged so that each subject would have approximately the same visual field. Height adjustments could be accomplished by raising or lowering either the head-rest or the subject's chair, but lateral movements were not allowed. The rest placed the subject's eyes two meters from the projector screen.

The blinder tunnel measured 32 am. In length,

18 om. In width, and 9.5 cm. in height. All surfaces exposed to the subjeot wore painted flat black. A pair of











hinged blinds at either end of the tunnel allowed use of either or both eyes.

b. A Keystone Overhead Tachistoscope was placed below and in front of the head-rest in such a position that the projected image of Pica type averaged 2 cam. in height (for tall letters). A cut-out mask reduced the size of the rectangular area of light projected on the screen to 11 cm. high by 57.5 cm. wide. Exposure times of 10, 20, 40, and 100 milliseconds were available.

c. A wooden reel was mounted on either side of the tachistoscope, and a strip of acetate was out to fit the reels. Fleven lists of words were typed in Pica type on "Badio-Mat" slides and taped to the plastic strip. Calibration marks were matched on the tachistoscope and on the continuous plastic strip to allow presentation of words In

uniform positions.
The word lists totalled 168 words, of which 80 were duplicates (See Appendix III). The procedure by which these words were selected involved 7 steps as follows:
(1) Three-, five-, and seven-letter words having a
frequency of 900-1900 per 4,500,000 in the Lorge
Magazine Count (15) were listed.

(2) Proper names, contractions, and numbers were
eliminated from the lists*










(3) Three 20-word lists were randomly selected from
the five-letter word list. One 10-word list of
three-letter words was randomly selected. One 10word list of seven-letter words was randomly selected.

(4) The word-order within each list was randomized.
(5) The right or loft position of a given word in Lists P. G8, U., W., and Y was chosen at random with
the exception of the last 2 words In each list
(which were placed to equate the number of words on
the right and left In each list).
(6) The right or left position of words In Lists Q,
T4 V, X- and 2 was reversed from that of the same
words in Lists P, 8. U, W, and Y, respectively.

(7) A practice list was constructed from the first 8 words of the military phonetic alphabet, Wordorder and word-position were randomly selected,

do The projection screen was constructed of fiberboard covered by two coats of flat white paint. Centered in the exposed area was a t-inch black tack-head used as a fixation point. The extent of screen exposed in binocular vision measured 50 am, high by 120 cm, wide; the monocular extents (limited by the blinds) were 50 areb high by 67 cam. wide
Words projected on the screen were centered 106

on* (3 visual angle) to the right or left of the center of the fixation point* The man height of tall letters was 2 ou. Mean horizontal extents of words were as follows three-letter words - 5.1 cu,1 fiveo-letter words - 8.5 cm.; seven-letter words -. l1.9 a*m











4. The mimeographed record forms (See Appendix V) provided spaces for recording such data as the subject's name, student number, age, sex, college year, writing hand, Keystone Visual Skills Test scores, Crider eye-dominance test scores, and response to each word exposed in the experiment.

5. The room In which the apparatus was set up measured approximately 20 feet long by 12 feet wide by 10 feet high. All doors and windows were covered to minimise illumination from outside sources. Constant lighting was provided by seven 48-inch fluorescent tubes in overhead fixtures.













PROCE1DJRE


1. Preliminary phase
2* Administration of Keystone Visual Skills Tests
3. Administration of Crider eye-dominance test
4. Experiment 1 5. Experiment 2
6. Final phase

1. In the preliminary phase the subject was greeted and acquainted with the apparatus. His name and other personal data were recorded.

2. The Keystone Visual Skills Tests I-VII and X-XIII were administered according to the manual (8), and the subject's scores were recorded. If glasses were used, this

fact was also recorded; the subject was asked to keep his glasses on for the rest of the experiment.

3. Crider's eye-dominance test was administered according to the manual (4), and the subject's scores were recorded. At this point the subject was placed In one of four categories as follows: (R) right-eyed subjects (dominance score of 13-0 or 12-1) meeting the selection criteria under *Subjects* above; (L) left-eyed subjects (dominance score of 1-12 or 0-13) meeting the selection criteria; (M) intermediate subjects (dominance scores troam











11-2 to 2-11) meeting the selection criteria; (X) all subjects falling to meet the selection criteria. Subjects In

the four categories followed parallel procedures In the

remainder of the experiment; that is, the first subject In

each category received the same treatment as the first

subject in each of the other categories, the second subjects received the same treatment, and so on for the remaining subjects.

4. The procedure for Nxperiment 1 was as follows:

a. The subject was seated comfortably and the headrest was adjusted.

b. The experimenter pointed out the fixation point

and gave the following instructions:

This Is the fixation point, From now on whenever I say *Ready, fix'. look at the fixation point and do
not look away until after a word appears. The words
will be either right or left of the fixation point, but you are not to look where the word Is. Always
look at the fixation point whenever I say "Ready,
fix. Do you have any questions so far?

Now, there are two things I want to point out: one is that the fixation point must be centered in the screen as you look at it; the other Is that you may occasionally find yourself paying attention to the black blind
when one eye is covered. If at any time you notice that you do not have the fixation point centered or
that you are seeing the black blind with the covered
eye, let me know right away and we will wait until you
are ready again. Aro questions now?

Next, we will go through a practice list to find a
shutter speed that will be right for you. When a word appears on the screen, tell me what It was; if you are











not sure, guess. Any questions? Now, center the fixation point and I will show you the first word. Ready,
fix.
a. The experimenter then presented the practice list

at a shutter speed of 10 milliseconds and recorded the subject's responses. If the subject reported four or more words correctly, this speed was accepted as his shutter speed for the rest of the experiment. If he did not report as many as four words (50 per cent of the practice list) correctly, the list was repeated at a shutter speed of 20

milliseconds. If four or more words were correctly reported, this speed was accepted; If not, the list was repeated at 40 milliseconds exposure, and, If necessary, at 100 milliseconds exposure. Even if the subject failed to reach the criterion of four words correct at 100 milliseconds exposure, this was the speed accepted since slower speeds allow gross eye movements. After the shutter speed had been determined, the subject was asked for additional questions and was reminded about fixation and retinal rivalry.

d, Three 20-word lists of five-letter words were then presented with a one-minute break between lists. The experimenter watched the subject's eyes through the blinder tunnel for gross eye movements. Columns 1, 2, and 3 of Appendix IV Indicate the manner in which counterbalancing











was accomplished. The counterbalanced factors were the eye used, the list used, and the word-position for a given word. Binocular vision was used as a control

e. The subject was given a five-minute break and was encouraged to report his experiences and to ask questions.

5. In Experiment 2 the subject was seated as in Fxperiment I and was reminded about fixation and retinal rivalry. The procedure generally paralleled that of Experiment 1 with the following changes:

a. The practice list was not repeated.
b. The instructions were changed to the following:

That was all of the five-letter words; next we are going to have three- and seven-letter words; everything
else is the same. Now, any questions?

o, Each subject operated under only one eye-used condition. The lists used and the counterbalancing order may be seen in Columns 4 and 5 of Appendix IV.

6. In the final phase the subject was informed of his scores, thanked, and released.

For a majority of the subjects A.C.J. scores and

reading test scores were available In University of Florida

files. These scores were recorded. (The reading test, given by the C-3 department at the University of Florida, tests rate of reading, comprehension, and vocabulary.)














RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS


1. Experiment 1

Hypothesis. -- In a differential word recognition situation the left eye will recognize words better on the left and the right eye will recognize words better on the right.

Results. -- Table 1, computed for the raw scores of

TABLE I

DIFFERENTIAL WORD RECOGNITION IN MONOCULAR AND BINOCULAR
VISION BY THE SAMPLE GROUP, EXPERIMENT 1


Eye- Word- Mean No. S.D. t
used position of Words
Recognized


Left Right 4.74 2.08 6.28"**a
Left 2.88 2.15
- --------------- - --
Right Right 4.68 2.18 5.15***
Left 3.15 2.15
------ --- ------------------
Both Right 7.16 1.88 9.74***
Left 4.57 2.37 N: 81
aThroughout this paper the following system of denoting significance levels will be used: * -- .05 level of confidence; 1* -- .01 level; *** -- .001 level.











the sample group for five-letter words, indicates that word recognition was significantly better on the right for the left eye, for the right eye, and for both eyes together in binocular vision.1

Conclusion. -- Since words were recognised significantly better on the right with either eye, the hypothesis

is rejected at the .001 level of confidence.


2. Experiment 2
Hypothesis. -- Seven-letter words will show greater differential word recognition than three-letter words.

Results. -- An analysis of variance classifying

word-position (right or left) against word-length (three or

seven letters) was performed on the raw scores of the sample group.2 Table 2, below, indicates that word-position differences were highly significant, The interaction between word-length and word-position (FPxC) was also highly

1A preliminary analysis of variance (See Table 1, Appendix I) showed no significant effects of eye-dominance on differential word recognition (R-L) scores. Accordingly, results for the three dominance groups were combined.

2Preliminary analyses of variance (See Tables 2 and 3, Appendix I) showed no significant effects of eyedominance or of the eye used upon differential word recognition (R-L) scores. Accordingly, results for the three dominance groups and for the three eye-used conditions were combined.










TABLE 2

VARIANCE TABLE: WORD RECOGNITION SCORNS FOR WORD-LENGTH
BY WORD-POSITION FOR THE SAMPLE GROUP, EXPERIMENT 2


Source Sums of d.f. Mean F Squares Square

Rowe: ,Word-length 4.938 1 4.938 3.47 Columns: Wordposition 64.000 1 64.000 30.30*4* Blocks: Subjects 275.222 80 3.440

Interaction: RxC 42.975 1 42.975 30.16*** Interaction: RxB 87.062 80 1.088 ._b Interaction: BxC 169.000 80 2.112 1.48*

Interaction: RxBxC 114.025 80 1.425

Total 757.222 323


N: 81
bThroughout this paper a dash to Indicate an F smaller than 1.00.


( - ) will be used


significant; that Is, for the sample group differential word recognition varied significantly with word-length

Table 3, below, Indicates that the above-mentioned interaction Is In the expected direction; that Is, the (R-L) difference is greater In the case of seven-letter words.

ConelSgi, -- Since significantly greater differential word recognition was found for seven-letter words then for three-letter words, the hypothesis Is not reJeated.











TABLE 3

MEAN NUMBER OF )RDS RECOGNIZED BY TBE SAMPLE GROUP IN
EXPERIMENT 2 BY WORD-LEINGTH AND W RD-POSITION


Word-length Word- Mean No. SOD. t
position of Words
Recognized

Three Right 2.53 1 56 0.76
Left 2.37 1.22

Seven Right 3.51 1.42 7.56K*
Left 1.89 1.42

N: 81


3. Addenda

P~actts arreass -- It was desired to investigate practice effects. This was possible for the five-letter words of Experiment 1 (eye-used and word-posItion conditions were counterbalanced). In an analysis of variance of raw soores for the sample group, word-position was classified against the series-position of the three twenty-word lists (that is, the first, seoond, or third list shown to each subjeot; see Appendix IV). Table 5. Appendix I, Indicates that there were no significant practice effects either in total number of words recognized or In differential word reoognition. Table 6. Appendix I. shows the mean number of words recognised by the sample group for the










first, second, and third lists shown (to a given subject) In Experiment 1.

Other factors. __ Certain scores additional to those

needed to test the two hypotheses were available. It was desired to determine whether any of them might be related

to differential word recognition.

A *Total Score* (R-L, a differential word recognition score) was derived for all words recognized by each subject. Table 7, Appendix I, Indicates that no significant relation was found between total scores for the total

group3 and each of the following: (1) scores from the Keystone Visual Skills Tests; (2) eye-dominance scores;

(3) A.C.B. scores; (4) reading test scores; (5) individual differences in handedness, age, and education; (6) uncontrolled experimental variables such as exposure time and the use of glasses.4 As a check the same operations were performed on the data for the sample group only;5 the results were similar (See Table 8. Appendix I)*


3Table 4, Appendix I, (in conjunction with Tables I and 3, above) Indicates that the non-sample group performed In essentially the same manner with respect to differential word recognition as the sample group; these groups combined form the total group.

4Raw data may be obtained from the writer.

5The selection procedure restricted the distributions of soe of these scores for the sample group.






89



A sex difference approaching significance (t- 2.42 for the total group; t- 2.83 for the sample group) was found In total scores. This finding Indicated that raw score differences should be Investigated. Table 9, Appendix I, shows that both male and female subjects recognized words better on the right and that the right-left differences were generally larger for the male subjects.













DISCUSSION


The results of Experiment 1, taken by themselves, support the Mishkin and Forgays (12) hypothesis of superior efficiency of the left hemi-retinas In word recognition. Recognition was significantly better when the left hemi-retinas were the stimulated areas; this was true for both monocular and binocular vision. The finding by Poffenberger (14) of faster reaction time to a light by the nasal rather then the temporal retinas does not seem to generalize to word recognition. Furthermore, the eyeand field-dominance relations reported by Anderson and Crosland (3) and by Learone and Holland (10) for letters and numerals do not appear to hold In word recognition.

It was noted that the eye-used condition affected differential word recognition In the case of five-letter

words. However, most of the difference was between binocular and monocular conditions rather than between the right and left eye. Also, differential, word recognition was slightly greater for the left eye then for the right eye; the rationale for Experiment I would predict the opposite result. Our first hypothesis must be rejected.










The results of Experiment 2 suggest that the location of the beginnings of words may be a factor in differential word recognition. Longer English words would gain a greater advantage In recognition from such a factor, and differential word recognition was found significantly greater for seven-letter words than for three-letter words. (It may be noted that *word-beginnings* would also account nicely for better recognition of Jewish words in the left position.) It is unlikely that the above difference Is due to greater experience with the seven-letter words since controls for frequency of word usage were instituted. On the other hand, Forgays' (5) finding that differential word recognition scores increased with increasing grade level may well prevent acceptance of word-beginnings as a sole

explanation for differential word recognition; there is no Immediately evident reason why word-beginnings should be more important at the higher grade levels. It is, of

course, possible that word-beginnings become increasingly important to recognition in the course of experience in reading.

Still, whether or not It is the sole explanation, the factor of word-beginnings appears important In differential word recognition. If so, the differential training hypothesis in its present form cannot provide a necessary and sufficient explanation for the findings.










Since the factor of word-beginnings offers a possible explanation of differential word recognition that is

not dependent upon retinal locus as such, It is not necessary to reject the doctrine of equipotentiality on the basis of previous studies In this area.
Differential word recognition was not found significant for three-letter words. No great importance Is attached to this result since Forgays (5) did find signifIcant differential word recognition for this word-length and since the right-left differences, although not significant, were In the expected direction. (In other words, no claim is made that differential word recognition does not occur for three-letter words.)
Women were found to show less differential word recognition than men. However, this difference is not granted great importance for two reasons: (1) the number of women, 28, was relatively small, and (2) women showed the same general pattern of differential word recognition as men.

Further study in this area should include a functional Investigation of the effects of word-beginnings.

A second question is the possibility of an Interaction between experience and word-beginnings. Finally, a possible sex difference in differential word recognition

might be considered.













SUMMARY


1. The purpose of the present study was to investigate monocular vision and word-beginnings as possible factore in differential word recognition. The first hypothesis was that the left eye would recognize words better on the left and that the right eye would recognize words better on the right. The second hypothesis was that sevenletter words would show greater differential word recognition than three-letter words.

2. One hundred twenty University of Florida students were shown lists of three-, five-, and seven-letter words centered 30 to the right or left of a fixation point. Exposure times (not found related to differential word recognition) ranged from 10 to 100 milliseconds between subjects. Recognition scores and other data were obtained. A sample group of 81 subjects was selected from the total

group.
3. Words were recognised significantly better on the right with either eye and with both eyes, Seven-letter words showed significantly greater differential word recognition than three-letter words. The first hypothesis was rejected, but the second hypothesis was not rejected.






34



4. This study has shown that (1) differential word recognition can occur In monocular vision and (2) the locations of word-beginnings may affect superior recognition of words to the right of a fixation point.













LIST OF REFERENCES


1. Anderson, I. and Crosland, H. R. The effect* of eyedominance on'Range of Attention' scores. Univ.
Oregon Pubi., 1933, 4. #4.

2. The effects of handedness on'Range of Attention' scores. Univ. Oregon Pabl., 1934, . #5.

3. _ The effects of combinations of handedness
and eyedness on letter-position, 'Range of Attention' scores. Univ. Oregon Pubi., 1934, 4, #7.

4. Crider, B. A battery of tests for the dominant eye.
J. General Psychol., 1944, A, 179-190.

5. Forgays, D. G. The development of differential word
recognition. J. Exp. Psychol., 1953, A., 165-168.

6. Hebb, D. 0. The organization of behavior. New York:
Wiley, 1949.

7. Huey, E. B. The psychology and pedagogy of reading.
New York: Macmillan, 1908.

8. Keystone Vision Training Series: Part II, Visual
Skills and Supplementary Tests. Meadville, Penn.:
Keystone View Company, 1948.

9. Koffka, K. Principles of Gestalt psychology. New
York: Harcourt, Brace, 1935.

10. LaGrone, C. W., Jr. and Holland, B. F. Accuracy of
perception in peripheral vision In relation to dextrality, intelligence, and reading ability.
Amer. J. ,P!cholo, 1943, �61 59Z-598.

11. Lashley, K. S. The problem of cerebral organization
in vision. piological Symposia, 1942, l, 301-322.

12. Mishkin, M. and Forgays, D. G. Word recognition as a
function of retinal locus. J. Exp. Psychol.,
1952, A, 43-48.






36



13. Orbach, J. Retinal locus as a factor in the recognition of'visually perceived words. Amer. J.
Psycholo, 1952, 65, 555-562.

14. Poffenberger, A. T., Jr. Reaction time to retinal
stimulation. Arch. Psychol., 1912, #23.

15. Thorndike, F. L. and Lorge, I. The teacher'. word
book of 30,000 words. New York: Columbia, 1944.
































APPINDIXNS













APPENDIX I. TABLES 1-10


TABLE 1

VARIANCE TABLE: RECOGNITION SCORES (FIVE-LETTER WORDS)
FOR EYE-DOMINANCE BY EYE-USED (SAMPLE GROUP)



Source Sums of dof. Mean F Squares Square


Between Dominance
Groups 23.761 2 11.880 1,16 Between Subjects In
Same Group 797.902 78 10,230 Total letween--------_ _ftb_bqt_ . .. . .. e J�_ AQe

Between Eye-used 47.761 2 23,880 4,98** Interaction: Eye-used
x Dominance Group 10.955 4 2.739 -Interaction: Pooled
Subjects x Eyeused 748,617 156 4.799 Totial- Wit..in
_ _tbj.tA -a .... 7 __ 162 Total 1628,996 242 N: 81











TABLE 2

VARIANCE TABLE: RECOGNITION SCORES (THREE-LETTER WORDS)
FOR YE-DOMINANCE BY EYE-USED (SAMPLE GROUP)


Source sums of d.f. Mean F Squares Square


Eye-dominance 7,580 2 3.790 1.12 Eye-used 5.358 2 2,679 -Interaction 8.198 4 2.050 -Within 243.778 72 3.386 Total 264.914 80 N: 81


TABLI 3

VARIANCE TABLE: RECOGNITION SCORNS (SEVIN-LETTIR WORDS) FOR EYE-DOMINANCI BY FYN-USED (SAMPLE GROUP)


Source Sums of d.f. Mean F Squares Square


Eye-dominance 6.692 2 3.346 -Eye-used 12.617 2 6.308 1,66 Interaction 8.494 4 2.124 Within 273.333 72 3,796 Total 301.136 80 N: 81











TABLE 4

MEAN NUMBER OF WORDS RECOGNI2ED BY THE NON-SAMPLE AND
TOTAL GROUPS BY V)RD-LENGTH AND WORD-POSITION


Subject Group

Word- Wordlength posi- Non-sample Total (letters) tion

No. of t No. of t Words Words


Five, Right 4.28 5,18*** 4.59 8.19*** left eye Left 2.18 2.65
--------- ----- -------- -- -
Filve Right 4.77 3.58*** 4.71 6.82*** right eye Left 2.85 3.05


Five, Right 6.26 5.27** 6.87 10.85**1 both eyes Left 4.33 4.49


Three Right 2,41 2.27* 2,49 1.85
Left 1.85 2.20


Seven Right 2.92 5,69*t.* 3.32 9.49***
Left 1.41 1.73

N, Non-sample: 39
N, Total: 120











TABLE 5

VARIANCE TABLE: ORD RECOGNITION SCORES (FIVE-LETTER WORDS)
FOR WORD-POSITION BY SERIES-POSITION (SAMPLE GROUP)


Source sum of d.f. Mean F Squares Square


Rows � Word-position 484.002 1 404.002 94.26*f,
Columns: Seriesposition0 7,029 2 3.514 -Blocks: Subjects 1009.597 80 12.620

Interaction: RxB 410.831 s0 5.135 2.05*** Interaction: RxC 1.992 2 0.996 -Interaction: BxC 845.971 160 5.287 2.11*** Interaction: RxBxC 401.675 160 2.510

Total 3161.097 485

N: 81
C"Series-position" refers to the occurrence of a given word In the first, second, or third list shown to a given subject (See Appendix IV).


TABLE 6

MEAN NUMBER OF WORDS RECOGNIZED BY THE SAMPLE GROUP
FOR EACH SERIES-POSITION BY WORD-POSITION


Series-position
Wo rd - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
position
1 2 3


Right 5.27 5.62 5.69

Left 3.46 3.53 3.60

N: 61











TABLE 7

RELATION OF VISUAL AND OTHER FACTORS TO
TOTAL SCORE (R-L, TOTAL GROUP)


Item N 1d [ Resultd
_ _ __ _ __ -t__ -


1. (Keystone Telebinocular)
a. Far-point muscular balance
b. Far-point fusion
a* Far-point usable vision,
right eye
d. Far-point acuity, right
eye
e. Difference, (d)-(o)
f. Far-point usable vision,
left eye
g. Far-point acuity left eye
h, Difference, (g)-(f) i. Difference, (1)-Cc) J. Difference, (g)-(d)
k. Far-point stereopsis
I. Near-point muscular
balance
m. Near-point fusion
n. Near-point usable vision,
right eye
o. Near-point acuity, right
eye
p. Difference, (o)-(n)
q, Near-point usable vision,
left eye
r. Near-point acuity, left
eye
s. Difference, (r)-(q) t. Difference, (q)-(n) u. Difference, (r)-(o)


120 120

120

120 120

120 120 120 120 120
120 120 120

120

120
120

120

120
120 120 120


10/109
2/117

8/111

7/112
4/115

9/110 8/111
5/114 11/108 11/108
5/114

10/109 2/117

10/109

8/111 7/112

10/109

10/109
5/114 12/107 11/108


F z F: 1.13

F: -
F" -
F- --


FTF=
F.
F= F.
F.


1.44 1*37
-a
- -


Fu 1,37 F, -

F. --


2
2 *16


dVarious statistics were used for convenience. The F-ratios are from simple analyses of variance performed on the total (R-L) scores, Subject groups were set up on the basis of scores for the variables listed under WItem".











TABLE 7 -- Continued


Item N d.f. Result


2. lye-dominance, Crider's test

3. (A.C.J. test)
a. Scores available vs. none
b. Quantitative score
a. Linguistic score
d. Total score

4. (Reading test)
a. Scores available vs. none
b. Reading rate
a. Story comprehension score
d. Vocabulary score
a. Total comprehension score
fi Total score

5. (miscellaneous)
a* Handedness
b. Age
a. Education (college year)
d. Sex
e. Exposure time
f. B's wearing glasses vs.
those not
g. Sample vs. non-sample S's
he S's meeting the first 3
selection criteria vs.
those not


120

120 87 87 87

120 67 67 67 67
67

120
120 120 120
120
120 120

120


12/107















10/109
4/115 3/118


F: 1.06

to 0.85 rs -.13 ra -.15
rs -.17

t= 0.75
r. -.02
r: -,17 ra -.22 r: -.14
ra -.21

t= 1.06
Fs 1.45 F3 1.46 tz 2.42* Fa 1,66

ts 0.58 ta 0,29

ts 0,16











TABLE 8

RELATION OF VISUAL AND OTHER FACTORS TO
TOTAL SCORE (R-L, SAMPLE GROUP)


Item N d.f. Result


1. (Keystone Telebinocular)
a. Far-point muscular balance
b, Far-point fusion
0, Far-point usable vision,
right eye
d. Far-point acuity, right
eye
a, Difference, (d)-(W)
fo Far-point usable vision,
left eye
g. Far-point acuity, left eye
h. Difference, (g)a(f) 1, Difference, (f)-(o) 3. Difference, (W)-(d)
k. Far-point stereopsls
I. Near-point muscular
balance
a. Near-point fusion
no Near-point usable vision,
right eye
o. Near-point acuity, right
eye
p. Difference, (o)-(n)
q6 Near-point usable vision,
left eye
r. Near-point acuity, left
eye
s. Difference, (r)-(q)
t. Differenee, (q)-(.) w. Difference, (r)-(o)

t. Sye-dostuanoe, Crider's test

3. (A.C.N. test)
a. Scores available vs. none
b. Quantitative scre
0. Linguistic sore
d. Total score


81 81

81

81 81

81 81
81 81 81 81

81 81

81

81 81

81

81 81 81 81

81

81 59 59 59


7/73
1/79

7/73

5/75
4/76

5/75 5/75
3/77 8/72
6/74 3/77

8/72 2/78

9/71

8/72 6/74

8/72 8/72
5/75 12/68 1o/70 13/68


75 F= 1.70 Fx Fa -
F- --


2.28

E, 47 1*07
-m


F: 1.55 F: -

F: --


4.o0
1.07


1.18

-.06
-.13











TABIJE 8 -- Continued


Item N dof Result


4. (Reading test)
a. Scores available vs. none 81 t= 0.30 b. Reading rate 46 r .+,03 c. Story comprehension score 46 r= -.15 d* Vocabulary score 46 r= -.19 e. Total comprehension score 46 re -h12 f: Total score 46 re *618

5. (Miscellaneous)
a. Handedness 81 to 0.84 b. Age 81 8/72 Fo 1.54
o, Education (college year) 81 4/76 F.
4. Sex 81 ta 2483**~
e, Uxposuro time 81 3/77 Fe 1.57
f. S's wearing glasses vs.
those not 81 to 0.62











TABIL 9

MEAN NUMBER OF WORDS RECOGNIZED BY SIX,
WOD-LENGTH, AND WORD-POSITION


Sex


Word- Word- Males Females
leigth posi(letters) tion
No. of t No* of t Words Words


Five', Right 4.66 8*67*** 4.36 1.67 left eye Left 2.38 3.54


Five light 4.71 8.78** 4.71 1.63 rigth eye Left 2.79 3.89


Five, Right 6.76 9*89*** 7,21 4.63*** both eyes Left 4e20 5.46
-----_w -- - - - - - - - e - ----w
Three Right 2,51 2,02* 2.43 0.20
Left 2.15 2.36


Seven Right 3.17 7.73** 3.79 5*47***
Left 1.65 2.00

N, Males: 92
N, Females: 28











TABLE 10

RAW DATA: NUMBER OF WORDS RECOGNIZED BY EACH
SUBJECT UNDER EACH CONDITIONe


WordPOOL
tion


Word-length


3 Letters 5 Letters 7 Letters Eye-used Eye-used Eye-used


- p ~ g - 4 - * ~ - . -I- I - II


Right Lef t Right Left

Bight Left
-Lft Lef t



Let t

Right Lef t


0
2






5
2


- - -


1



2


4

5



7

4


6
0
-No
6
6


4
3

6
5
5
5

9
7

3
2


0

5


a
6


7

4
2 10
9

6
3
5
2 10
a


b - -


5


5
2





-
1
1


3






2
2
- -


�The conditions were the length of the words (3, 5, or 7 letters), the position of the words (right or left of the fixation point), end the eye used (left, right, or both together), Maximum scores under each combination of conditions: 10 for fte-letter words and 5 for three- and sevenletter words.


Subject No*


R 2

-


R3


-


D m


2











TABLE 10 -- Continued


- t - - - S - * - S - - - * - . - S -


RB R 9


RiO nil

a a
R12

B13




R15 R16
R17

Big RIB







So R20
- ob


Hal




B22


Right Left

Right Lef t



Right L Lt.

Right Lef t



Right Lef t

Right Lef t

Right Lef t

Right Lef t

Right Lof t
0 4 . Right Left

Right
Left


Loft Right Lef t
ob a do R ight Let t

" - OR

Right

Lef t


* a
2
4














- a
3
5







a




a

3


SJ a


- a




0
2












5 0 0 a






3
aa







4
3
a


I U


I1 115


w go I


" 4 a a*


6
3

5
2

5







1
5
3

3
0

7

5

5
6

5





6
4
a a




4
3 '7


6
6
9


4
4






,0.
4

3
5 0.

8

6

5
5

7
2

5
5

6
6

3

7
3
6
2
a 'A
4


8


6
2

5
6

9
6

7







2
4
5








a a.
9
9
aa
5







8
5







7
7 10
4




9



4

7
7

7
4


a a a1 a


.0 a


5
2


1






5
4







4






4
0
a


4
1








a a


1
2











4







4
1


a aD ao













a opa



aoa











TABLE 10 -- Continued


-a- S S - w - * - V - S - S - 5'-.- 5' - V -


R23 B24


R25 B26 R27 I 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 I 5 1 6

- a0 I? 187 I a 19


Right
Left

Right Left

Right Lef t Right Lef t

Right Lef t Right Lef t

Right Lef t Right Left Right Lef t

Right Left

Right Lef t

Right Left

Right Left

Right Lef t


1
2




4
1










1
2
2
1






2
2


4
S















5
4







3
2






4
1


a a aw -


3
2




5
3

2
4












5
1






4


6
3

0
3

2
0

7
2
5
0
1
4

6
5

3
2

5
6

9
6

5
1

3
7

5
4
5
4


7
4

4
6
3
2
a
7
1

7
5 10
9

9
5

6
4

8
7 lo
9

8
4 10
8

8
3
S


3


0
3

4
3






3
4


3








1







4
4







5







4
0


a a


- a a -


- a0 9


|

I


m _


n






50




TABLE 10 -- Continued



I10 Right 0 2 2 8 2
Left 1 1 4 4 0
o a a am a a a - - a a - at - - a
Ill Right 0 5 3 7 1
Left 2 4 4 8 1

112 Right 3 7 7 7 5
Left 1 3 5 4 2

13 Right 0 1 0 6 0
Left 3 2 3 6 2

114 Right 2 9 8 7 5
Left 2 2 4 5 3
a a a a i a D a a a ai a a a a 5
115 Right 5 4 6 7 3
Left 3 3 7 7 3
-m am at am a� a a a a a e aD a �
116 Right 3 4 7 9 3
Left 2 3 3 6 1

117 Right 3 4 4 6 5
Left 0 2 5 6 1

118 Right 0 3 1 6 3
Left 2 3 2 2 0
a a -o am a a a -m a1, a8 - aJ al a a a
119 Right 3 6 5 6 4
Left 5 4 4 5 3
a - - a a . - - a a - a a - a6 120 Right 2 7 8 7 5
Lef t 4 3 5 4 1
" a a - - a a - a a
121 Right 0 4 2 3 2
Left 1 0 3 2 1

122 Right 0 3 1 8 3
Left 1 0 0 2 0

123 Right 1 0 3 5 1
Left 3 1 2 3 1
L a a a a J a a a a a aL






51




TABLE 10 -- Continued



124 Right 5 7 5 9 5
Lef t 2 3 1 3 4
- - a -m a - a - - am a a a S D - S
125 Right 2 5 6 7 3
Left 5 2 0 3 1

126 Right 3 4 5 9 3
Left 4 4 2 5 3

127 Right 1 2 4 8 3
Left 2 0 2 3 2

L I Right 2 1 4 7 1
Left 3 3 5 8 2

L 2 Right 2 6 6 8 3
Left 3 5 3 4 1

L 3 Right 5 3 9 9 5
Left 0 8 1 5 0

L 4 Right 2 4 0 5 4
Left 1 1 1 5 3

L 5 Right 2 3 5 9 4
Lef t 3 8 7 7 3
as a a a D , - - - a a a a a a= a a aD 5i a a
L 6 Right 3 8 4 10 3
Left 2 6 7 8 5

L 7 Right 4 5 4 9 4
Lef t 3 5 7 9 4

L 8 Right 3 5 5 9 4
Left 3 1 2 6 2

L 9 Right 2 4 4 3 1
Left 3 2 5 4 0

L10 Right 5 6 5 3 5
Lef t 3 1 5 6 1


-0 -


. - 4


Op "


- m


-






52




TABLE 10 -- Continued



Lii Right 1 4 5 6 3
Left 1 6 4 7 3

L12 Right 1 6 5 9 5
Lef t 3 3 2 6 1

L13 Rlight 2 4 3 9 5
Left 4 1 1 7 1

L14 Right 3 8 6 9 4
Lef t 3 1 1 3 4
- a a - - a a a a a - a ea a a
Li5 Right 2 6 4 7 2
Left 2 3 1 0 0

L16 Right 2 7 4 8 5
Lef t 2 6 4 5 1

Li? Right 3 7 4 8 3
Lef t 1 4 4 5 3

L18 Right 5 1 7 8 3
Left 3 1 0 1 0
a a a a a a a a - a a w a a a
L19 Right 5 2 6 8 5
Left 2 2 1 7 1

L20 Right 3 3 2 6 4
Left 1 0 0 1 0

L21 Right 5 6 5 4 3
Left 2 0 0 3 3

L22 Right 0 4 2 6 3
Left 1 1 0 2 1

L23 Right 0 6 3 9 4
Left 2 4 2 1 0

L24 Right 1 1 2 7 2
Lef t 1 0 1 1 0
L a L a a a a4 L a a a a L . a a.











TABLE 10 -- Conti,,ed


~- I* F - I - 9 - I - I - 9 - 9 - 9 - 9


L25 L26 L27 xl X2 X3


X4 X5


X6


X7

x a
X 8 x9





XlO


Right Lef t

Right Left

Right Left

Right Left

Right Left

Right Left

Right Left

Right Lef t

Right Left

Right Left

Right Left

Right Left

Right Lef t

Right Left


3
0






3
1



3

3












1


a 4 a a


1
2


2
2

4
1

6
0

0
4
3
0

4
2
3
2
9
9

5 :3
4
0 :3


4
1

7
5

3


40 a a


" a OR a


5
7

4
0

3

7
6

5
1

4
1

10
4
a
10
7

7
5
5
0
2
3



6
7

6


- - a w


*


4
0






3
0






4
4









1
0
a a






54



TABLE 10 -- Contirnued



X12 Right 2 4 4 5 3
Lef t 1 2 5 1

X13 Right 1 3 1 6 0
Lef t 2 1 2 6 0

X14 Right 2 6 2 6 2
Lef t 2 1 3 3 1

X15 Bight 3 0 3 9 2
Lef t 1 2 1 2 0

X16 Bight 2 2 8 9 1
Lef t 4 4 6 6 4

X17 Right 3 6 9 7 3
Lef t 2 3 2 8 3
- a - a - a a a w w a a a - a a
X18 Right 2 7 3 3 3
Lef t 5 1 6 3 2

X19 Right 5 4 3 6 4
Lef t 3 1 3 6 4

X20 Right 5 7 1 a 4
Lef t 1 2 2 5 0

X21 Right 3 1 7 5 3
Lef t 1 4 0 5 3
" .. a a a a a a " a a - a a a a X22 Right 1 1 6 a 5
Left 2 5 7 8 4

X23 Right 5 3 6 6 5
Left 1 1 2 1

X24 Right 3 1 1 9 1
Lof t 0 0 1 5 1

X25 Bight 3 8 6 7 3
Lef t 3 2 3 6 4


m w - -


0. .


- A


- 10


Lo - .


m


m - w






55




TABLE 10 -- Continued



X26 Right 1 3 3 7 3
Left 2 3 4 8 0

X27 Right 3 5 4 5 4
Left 2 1 3 5 0

X28 Right 3 a 4 9 5
Left 4 5 5 6 1

X29 Right 3 7 9 7 5
Left 3 5 4 9 2

X30 Right 4 4 1 2 3
Left 3 1 2 4 2
-aa - a a - a a
X31 Right 1 7 6 6 5
Left 3 1 6 2 1




a a a aa a a a as a a a - a am a
X32 Right 1 3 4 7 3
Lef t 2 2 4 3 2




a a a a m a a a a a a a a am a � a - a
X33 Right 1 3 6 4 2
Lef t 10 3 1 0

X34 Right 4 7 5 7 5
Left 1 2 3 5 1


a -aa a - a a a a a
X35 Right 3 5 5 8 3
Lef t 2 1 1 3 1


a aJ a - a a a am aP a a -m a
X36 Right 0 4 7 7 2
Left 1 3 0 6 2
. a a - - a a a a a - a a w a a a a a
X37 Right 2 5 6 a I
Lef t 0 0 0 3 0

X38 Right 2 5 4 3 3
Left 2 1 4 4 2

X39 Right 2 3 6 5 2
Lef t 1 1 1 4 0














APPENDIX II. DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT GROUPS


Subject Group
Item _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _

Sample Non- Total
sample


N 81 39 120

1. Mean age 21.5 23.3 22.1

2. Age range 18-26 17-54 17-54

3. No. of males 60 32 92

4. Mean college year 2.6 2.4 2.6

5. No. of left-handed S'e 10 1 11

6. No. of S's wearing glasses 22 9 31

7. Mean Crider eye-dominance 7.0- 11.4- 8.4test score 6.0 1.6 4.6

8. (A*.C.E. scores)
a. No. having scores 59 28 87
b. Mean quantitative score 45.1 42.3 44.2 c. Mean linguistic score 71.9 67.0 70.3 d. Mean total score 117.0 109.3 114.5

9. (Reading test scores)
a. No. having scores 46 21 67
b. Mean reading rate 307.3 323.5 312.4
c. Mean story comprehension score 15.0 14.5 14,9
d. Mean vocabulary score 47.2 45.1 46.5
e. Mean total comprehension score 31.2 29.5 30.7
f. Mean total score 78.4 74.7 77.2











APPENDIX II -- Continued


Subject Group
Item

Sample Non- Total sample

10. (Keystone Visual Skills
Tests'scores)
a. No. of failures in
simultaneous vision 0 0 0
b. No. of failures In
vertical muscular
balance 0 0 0
c. Mean far-point lateral
muscular balance score 9.1 9.0 9.1
d. No, of failures in
f ar-point fusion 0 1 1
e. Mean far-point acuity
score, right eye 9.1 8.5 8.9
f. Mean far-point acuity
score, left eye 9.1 8.3 8.8
g. No. of failures in
far-point stereopsis 0 3 3
h. Mean near-point
lateral muscular
balance score 5.0 4.9 4,9
1. No. of failures in
near-point fusion 15 5 20
j. Mean near-point acuity
score, right eye 18.2 17.9 18.1
k. Mean near-point acuity
score, left eye 17.7 17.2 17.6














APPENDIX III. MROD LIST;$


(The word lists with the Lorge Magazine Count Frequency per 4,500,000 words for each word in the main lists.)


List U List W List Y List S


Word f Word f Word f Word f


cover 1323 reach 1457 along 1534 cut 943 black 1083 group 1032 taken 1474 age 1022 since 1425 cause 940 often 1527 red 1036 dress 1790 quite 1732 sense 1080 far 1835 green 1025 child 1574 train 1019 hot 1006 ago 1107
paint 1107 human 963 serve 1195 cup 1336 color 1541 force 1019 chair 1298 boy 1567 front 1094 carry 1500 least 1254 set 1636 sound 1305 alone 1305 stand 1707 big 1773 table 1325 dance 1167 happy 1449
(Mean) 1326
fight 1391 touch 1016 state 1564 today 1104 story 1651 known 1091 glass 1001 paper 1235 close 1862 early 1022 given 1054 reply 1249 power 911 stood 1891 point 1377 Practice List

learn 1304 price 1026 among 1051 large 1697 small 1818 plant 944
watch 1722 study 942 floor 1001 george laugh 1768 whole 1663 order 1477 able tried 1557 built 1152 begin 1109 baker dog
(Mean) 1325 (Mean) 1307 (Mean) 1313 charlie how
easy
fox











APPENDIX III -- Continued


List P


Word


Lists V, X, Z, T, and Q are the same words as Lists U, W, Y, 3, and P, respectively* The only difference Is that word-positions (right or left) are reversed in the alternate list s.


(Mean) 1318


service present whether promise already

believe picture between
country perhaps


970
1075
1094
1036 1100

1371
1463 1526
1714
1833














APPENDIX IV. ORDIR OF PRESENTATION


(Order of presentation of word lists for each subject. Eaoh'list contained words both on the right and on the left; see Appendix III. The first letter in each pair indicates the eye used, and the second letter indicates the list used; for example, the first list shown to Subject R 1 was List W, and for this list he used his left eye.)



Sub- Presentation Order Sub- Presentation Order
jeo t ..-.. ject -. .-.No* I No.,I
112 3 4 5 1 2 31 4 5


R I R2 R3 H 4 R 5

R 6
R 7 R 8 R 9
R10
BlO
R12
R13 B14 B15

R16 R17
R18 B19 R20

R21 R22 B23


LW
LX Fri Hg BY

BV
LW LX RU
H?

BY BV LW LX RU

HZ2
LX RU
B? BY

BV LX
LX


BY
B?

LV LU


BY
BW LV

ID
fiX BY BZ BW

LV BZ BW LV LU

RX
B3 BZ


BU
LY BX



LyI
BU

RV LY
BX

LY. BU
RV BY BV


LP

BP LS RB

BS LQ
RQ BQ
LT

fiT BT LP HP
BP

LS
EQ
BQ
LT fiT

BT RP HP


LT BT BT LP HP

BP LS RS
S LQ

BQ
LT RT

LP
B

LQ
RQ

BQ
fiT


B24 B25 B26
R27 II

1 2 13
14 I 5 1 6

I7 18 19 I10
Ill

112
113
114 115
116

Ii? I18
119


H? oY
B? RU
LW

LX RU H?7
BY BY

LW
LX RU
R 1
LX

BV LW RU
BY LW

RU
B?
BY


LV

LV BW BY

B-7 BW
LV ID BK

HY
W,
BW
LV B7

fiX RY
BW LU By

BW
LV LU


BX LY


LY BU

L2 BY L7Y




LY RV


LY BX RW


LS
BS LS BQ
BP

RP
LP LS



LQ
EQ BQ
LT HP

ST LP BP PS LQ

BQ
LT
liT












APPENDIX IV -- Continued


Sub- Presentation Order Sub- Presentation Order Jo t _ - ,ject --.No* No.
___ 1+ 4__5 1121314 5
I _ -!L - -


120
121 122 123 124

125
126 127 LI L2

L3 L 4 L5
L6
L7

L8
L9 LIO Lll L12

L13
L14 L15
L16 L17

L18 L19 L20
L21
L22

L23
L24


BV Lx BY BY LY

BV LW LW LW BY

LX RU
RY BY

LW Lx ]RU HRZ BY

BV
Flu
EZ RZ BY

BY LW LX RU
R7

BY BV


EX
B7 LU
51

BY
BY BY

U


BW LV
u'


BY

BW
LV
u'


BW LV LV [LU

fIX
BY

BW LV

ID RX


LZ

BW
RW EW

LZ
HU



BY

LY
Bx 11W LZ

Su
BV LY BX RW

LZ
LY BX BX BW

1-2
Bu RV
LY BX

BW
LZ


BT HQ


BS

BT LS LQ
1-P



BP LS
RS


LQ BQ BQ
LT H?

BT BP LB LT? RS

BS LQ
EQ BQ
LT

B? BT


BQ
RS BQ RQ BP

BQ
LP
LS

EQ

HT BT 1-P

BP

LS
RS

LQ
EQ

BQ
BT

LQ


BP LB
RS

LQ

EQ BQ


L25 L26 L27
x I X2

X3
X4 X5
X6 X7

X8
X 9 X10 xl
X12

X13 X14 Xl5
X16 X17

X18

X19 X21 X22

X23 X24
X25 X26 X27


X28 X29


Lx BW LV LW
LX

RU RZ BY
FIX
HSI

BV BY BY LW
LX

LW
RU
BY LW
LX

BU BV BY
BV LW

LX LW
LX HZ
LX

BY BY


By
BX BY


BW LV

L Z LV

ID BK fly

BY BW

BY

BW
LU IRY
B7

BZ RY LV

fIX


BV


BU LY BK BY
BX LZ EW LX


BY

LY BW
BU

LY L2 BY


RV
BX RV RW


LQ~ RS
BP LP HIP

BP LS
R8
BP LS

BS RB
BS LQ RQ

LP BP RS
Lp


Bp
B BS LQ

PQ LQ RP
LT
EQ

HIT BT


LS HQ
BT LT RT

BT
LP Rp
BT LP

BP RP BP
LS RS

LT BT RP
LT RT

BT BP RP
BP
LS
RB
LS RT
LQ RS

EQ ~BQ












APPENDIX IV -- Continued


Sub- Presentation Order Sub- Presentation Order ject - 3eot _ - No. No.
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5


X30 1U BW LY BQ BS X35 RV LX BZ BQ BS X31 RU BW LY BP BT X36 LW BY BU LP LT X32 LW BY BU LP LT X37 RZ LV BX RS BP X33 LV BX R HS RP X38 LX BZ RV BQ BS X34 RX BZ LV LT LQ X39 LU BW BY LS LP














APPENDIX V. SAMPLE RECORD FOR S


NAME: STUDENT NUMBER: AGE: SEX: COLL..K CLASSIFICATION:__________WRITINa HAND:__ A.C.E. -- - _. C1: __ - .. .

KEYSTONE TELEBINOCULAR


2e a C
5. S.V.

2. V.I.

3. L.I.

4. F.

5. U.V.

6. U.V.
7. S.

10. L.I.


12. U.V.

13.. U .V.


5J 6 7 am a
567


567

567 567

678


10 11
10 11


a a a0 - a a a a - a a "
Pass Fail Pass Fl

8 9 10 11 2 13 14 15
a ao a a a a a a
3 4-3 4

8 9 10

8 9 10

8 9 10 11 12

9 10
3 4-3 4 12 13 14 15 16 17 S 19

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19


20 aa am a















20 21


a a a a



an a





22


- a a" a a a a a a a0 aw a. am a " a" - a a* a a " a


CRIDER TEST

NAME

Ring Card Box
Cons Opht hoscope Spot Mirror


PRACTICE LIST


R. L.



-


-


26 6. 3. .

4. 8


TEST

1.
2.
3a 4.
50 6o
7.












STUDENT NUMBER: DATE:


EYE: .______ EYE: EYE:.. EYE: LIST: LIST: LIST:: LIST:


8.



4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11. 12. 13.

14. 15.

16. 170 18. 19. 20.


1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.8 a..

9.

100

11 ..

120. 13.,

140.



16. 176, 8.
9.


2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.


9.

10. 11.

12. 14.

14. 160

17.* 18.

19.

20.


1.

2.

3.

40. 5.

6i 7, 80










19* 10. 11.

12.



14.

15. 16. _ .. ...



18. ...

19.

20.


TIM:













BIOORAPHICAL ITEMS


Joseph R# Melville was born at Fort Myers, Florida, on July 22, 1929. In 1947 he entered Vanderbilt University, where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. He held a Founder's Scholarship for-four years,. In 1951 he received the degree of Bachelor of Arts, Magna Cu. Laud*.

Shortly after graduation he entered the United

States Marine Corps. In Korea he served as a forward observer and as a fire control offioer with the Eleventh Marine Regiment*

In 1954 he entered the University of Florida, where he was elected to Phi Kappa Phi. He held a graduate assist antship., a Graduate School Fellowship, and an Arts and Soleness Fellowship, In 1955 he received the degree of Master of Arts.


81











This dissertation was prepared under the direction of the chairman of the candidate's supervisory committee and has been approved by all members of that committee. It was submitted to the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and was approved an partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.


January 26, 1957



Dean, Colleje of Arts and Sciences



Dean, Graduate School


SUPE VlISORY COMMITTEE:













011




Full Text
SUBJECTS
One hundred twenty University of Florida students
served as subjects. Eighty-one subjects were selected from
the total group by use of pre-established criteria to form
the "Sample* group for testing the two hypotheses. The re
maining 39 subjects constituted the "Non-sample* group.
The selection criteria for the sample group were as
f ollows:
1. Age: 18 through 26
2. Education: college undergraduate
3. Visual ability (Keystone Visual Skills Tests I-Vll):
a. no failure of simultaneous vision
b. no noticeable vertical muscular imbalance
c. lateral muscular balance scores not to exceed
the limits of 7 and 11 in the far-point test
d. no failure of far-point fusion
e. minimum acuity score of 5 with each eye in the
far-point test
f. minimum stereopsis score of 9
4. Eye-dominance: the first 27 subjects in each of the
three eye-dominance groups (left, Intermediate, and
right) to meet the first three criteria.
Sixty men and 21 women met these criteria; 25 subjects
failed to meet the first three, and 14 more were rejected
by the fourth.
The subject groups are described more fully in
Appendix XI.
15


29
A sex difference approaching significance (t- 2*42
for the total groupj t= 2*83 for the sample group) was
found In total scores* This finding indicated that raw
score differences should be investigated. Table 9* Appen
dix 1, shows that both male and female subjects recognized
words better on the right and that the right-left differ
ences were generally larger for the male subjects.


52
TABLE 10 Continued
Lll
Right
1
4
5
6
3
Left
1
6
4
7
3
L12
Right
1
6
5
9
5
Left
3
3
2
6
1
LI 3
Right
2
4
3
9
5
Left
4
1
1
7
1
LI 4
Right
3
8
6
9
4
Left
3
1
1
3
4
LI 5
Right
2
6
4
7
2
Left
2
3
1
0
0
LI 6
Right
2
7
4
8
5
Left
2
6
4
5
1
L17
Right
3
7
4
8
3
Left
1
4
4
5
3
LI 8
Right
5
1
7
8
3
Left
3
1
0
1
0
L19
Eight
5
2
6
8
5
Left
2
2
1
7
1
L20
Right
3
W
2
6
4
Left
1
0
0
1
0
LSI
Right
5
6
5
4
3
Left
2
0
0
3
3
L22
Right
0
4
2
6
3
Left
1
1
0
2
1
L23
Right
0
6
3
9
4
Left
2
4
2
1
0
L24
Right
1
1
2
7
2
Left
1
0
1
1
0


39
TABLE 2
VARIANCE TABLE: RECOGNITION SCORES (THREE-LETTER WORDS)
FOR EYE-DOMINANCE BY EYE-USED (SAMPLE GROUP)
Source
Sums of
Squares
d.f .
Mean
Square
F
Eye-dominance
7.580
2
3.790
1.12
Eye-used
5.358
2
2.679

Interaction
8.198
4
2.050

Within
243.778
72
3.386
Total
264.914
80
N: 81
TABLE 3
VARIANCE TABLE: RECOGNITION SCORES (SEVEN-LETTER WORDS)
FOR EYE-DOMINANCE BY EYE-USED (SAMPLE GROUP)
Source
Sums of
Square s
d.f.
Mean
Square
F
Eye-dominanc6
6.692
2
3.346
Eye-used
12.617
2
6.308
1.66
Interaction
8.494
4
2.124

Within
273.333
72
3.796
Total
301.136
80
N: 81


BIOGRAPHICAL ITEMS
Joseph R, Melville was born at Fort Myers, Florida,
on July 22, 1929* In 1947 he entered Vanderbilt University,
where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa* He held a Founder's
Scholarship for four years* In 1951 he received the degree
of Bachelor of Arts, Magna Cud Lauds*
Shortly after graduation he entered the United
States Marine Corps* In Korea he served as a forward ob
server and as a fire control officer with the Eleventh
Marine Regiment*
In 1954 he entered the University of Florida, where
he was elected to Phi Kappa Phi* He held a graduate assist-
antship, a Graduate School Fellowship, and an Arts and
Sciences Fellowship* In 1955 he received the degree of
Master of Arts*


48
TABLE 10 Continued


11
of LaGrone and Holland (10) in the case of letters and nu
merals seem to indicate a possible effect by eye-dominance
upon differences in recognition between the halves of the
visual field.
The cited studies of differential word recognition
have all used binocular vision. It will be remembered that
Anderson and Crosland found eye-dominance effects in monoc
ular letter recognition, and it should be noted that
Poffenberger found faster reaction times for the nasal ret
inas. Monocular vision might be a factor in differential
word recognition.
A number of other factors might reasonably affect
differential word recognition scores. In the interests of
brevity they will simply be listed. Situational factors
include illumination of room and screen, exposure time for
the words, size of words, type of tachistoscope, style of
print, distance from word to subject, word frequency, in
structions, and scoring methods. Organisraic factors in
clude 3et or attention, reading ability, age, sex, intel
ligence, education, and various visual abilities and dis
abilities.
In the present study these factors will be either
investigated or controlled.


RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
1* Experiment I
Hypothesis. In a differential word recognition
situation the left eye will recognize words better on the
left and the right eye will recognize words better on the
right.
Re suits, Table 1* computed for the raw scores of
TABLE 1
DIFFERENTIAL WORD RECOGNITION IN MONOCULAR AND BINOCULAR
VISION BY THE SAMPLE GROUP, EXPERIMENT 1
Eye-
Word-
Mean No,
S. D.
t
used
position
of Words
Recognized
Left
Right
4.74
2.08
6.28***
Left
2.88
2.15
Right
Right
4.68
2.18
5.15***
Left
3.15
2.15
Both
Right
7.16
1.88
9.74***
Left
4.57
2.37
N: 81
Throughout this paper the following system of de
noting significance levels will be used: ,05 level of
confidence; ** ,oi level; *** ,001 level.
84


31
The results o Experiment 2 suggest that the loca-
tion of the beginnings of words may be a factor in differ
ential word recognition. Longer English words would gain
a greater advantage in recognition from such a factor, and
differential word recognition was found significantly
greater for seven-letter words than for three-letter words.
(It may be noted that *word-beginnings* would also account
nicely for better recognition of Jewish words in the left
position.) It is unlikely that the above difference is due
to greater experience with the seven-letter words since
controls for frequency of word usage were instituted. On
the other hand, Forgays' (5) finding that differential word
recognition scores increased with increasing grade level
may well prevent acceptance of word-beginnings as a sole
explanation for differential word recognition; there is no
immediately evident reason why word-beginnings should be
more important at the higher grade levels. It is, of
course, possible that word-beginnings become increasingly
important to recognition in the course of experience in
reading.
Still, whether or not it is the sole explanation,
the factor of word-beginnings appears important in differ
ential word recognition. If so, the differential training
hypothesis in its present form cannot provide a necessary
and sufficient explanation for the findings.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
One hundred thirty people were directly involved in
the preparation o this dissertation. One hundred thirty
sincere Thank yous* are due.
The one hundred twenty subjects who donated an hour
of time each are especially to be thanked. My wife and my
children deserve a great deal of credit for putting up with
me during the course of the study. Mr. Stanley Spiegel and
Mr. Victor Chew were most helpful in checking for statisti
cal accuracy.
But particular thanks go to my supervisory commit
tee: Dr. D. Rethlingshafer, Chairman; Dr. E. D. Hinckley;
Dr, F. P. Horne; Dr. A. K. Kurtz; and Dr. J. w. Oliver.
The suggestions and advice of each are incorporated below.
ii


APPENDIXES


APPENDIX I TABLES 1-10
TABLE 1
VARIANCE TABLE: RECOGNITION SCORES (FIVE-LETTER WORDS)
FOR EYE-DOMINANCE BY EYE-USED (SAMPLE GROUP)
Source
Sums of
Squares
d.f.
Mean
Square
F
Between Dominance
Groups
23.761
2
11.880
1.16
Between Subjects in
Same Group
797.902
78
10.230
Total Between
_3ubje __821.663_
SO
Between Eye -use <3
47.761
2
23.880
4.98*#
Interaction: Eye-used
x Dominance Group
10.955
4
2.739
mmm
Interaction: Pooled
Subjects x Eye-
used
748.617
156
4.799
Total Within
JSubje csts
_807J5333_
- 162
Total
1628.996
242
N: 81
38


55
TABLE 10 Continuad


MONOCULAR VISION AND WORD-LENGTH AS FACTORS
IN DIFFERENTIAL WORD RECOGNITION
By
JOSEPH R. MELVILLE
A Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of
The University of Florida
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
JANUARY, 1957

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
One hundred thirty people were directly involved in
the preparation o this dissertation. One hundred thirty
sincere Thank yous* are due.
The one hundred twenty subjects who donated an hour
of time each are especially to be thanked. My wife and my
children deserve a great deal of credit for putting up with
me during the course of the study. Mr. Stanley Spiegel and
Mr. Victor Chew were most helpful in checking for statisti
cal accuracy.
But particular thanks go to my supervisory commit
tee: Dr. D. Rethlingshafer, Chairman; Dr. E. D. Hinckley;
Dr, F. P. Horne; Dr. A. K. Kurtz; and Dr. J. w. Oliver.
The suggestions and advice of each are incorporated below.
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRO DUCT ION . . 1
PROBLEM 12
SUBJECTS 15
MATERIALS AND APPARATUS . . 16
PROCEIXJRE 20
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS . . 24
DISCUSSION . . 30
SUMMARY . . 33
LIST OF REFERENCES 35
AFPENDIX I 38
AFPENDIX II ........ 56
AFPENDIX III 58
APPENDIX IV 60
APPENDIX V ....... 63
ill

INTRODUCTION
1. Differential Word Recognition
Efficiency in visual word recognition depends upon
many factors. The present study is related to the general
factor of retinal locus.
In The Organization of Behavior. Hebb (6) referred
to a study by Mishkin and Forgays, later reported more ful
ly by the authors (12). The essential finding was that
English words exposed briefly to the peripheral parts of
the retina were recognized more easily when falling on the
left hemi-retinas rather than on the right hemi-retinas.
The terra 'differential word recognition' was used to de
scribe the observed phenomenon.
Hebb accepted this result (as did Mishkin and
Forgays) 83 evidence for his general theory. In terras of
this theory differential word recognition is explained as
follows: (1) perception depends largely upon previous ex
perience; (2) English print reads from left to right, and,
in reading, the greater part of the peripheral recognition
activity is directed toward words to the right of a given
fixation point; (3) words to the right of a fixation point
are projected on the left herai-retinas; (4) thus, during
1

2
reading, the left hemi-retinas receive more recognition
training than the right hemi-retinaa; (5) therefore, words
projected on the left hemi-retinas will be more easily rec
ognized than words projected on the right hemi-retinas.
The Mishkin and Forgays study (12) consisted of
four experiments. In Experiment I eight-letter English
words were exposed briefly to 16 adult subjects. The fixa
tion point was 24 inches from the subject, and the words
were presented randomly in the following positions (mea
sured from the center of the word to the fixation point):
1-j? inches above, l-£ inches below, 2 inches to the right,
or 2 inches to the left. In a second series the words al
ways appeared in the same place, and the fixation point was
shifted at random among the above four locations; this was
done as a control for attention factors. Controls for fam
iliarity of prefixes and suffixes, shifts in fixation, and
familiarity with the task were observed. It was found that
English words were recognized significantly better in the
lower half of the visual field and in the right half of the
visual field.
Experiment II was intended to control for unidirec
tional factors favoring the right half of the visual field,
such as differences in acuity between the separate halves
of the retinas, selective attention to the right half of

3
th6 visual field, an anisotropy of visual space, and domi
nance of the left occipital cortex. These factors were at
tacked indirectly as follows; 19 subjects, aged 12 to 24,
who knew both English and Yiddish were shown English and
Yiddish words in the manner of the first series of Experi
ment I. English words were recognized significantly better
on the right; Yiddish words (Yiddish print reads from right
to left) were recognized slightly but not significantly
better on the left. The authors reasoned that if any of
the above unidirectional factors had been important, all of
the words would have been recognized more easily on the
right; they concluded that such factors were not important
in this situation.
In Experiment III an attempt was made to determine
the relative importance of the first and last letters of
words in word recognition. Using eight-letter English
words, Mishkin and Forgays blurred either the first four or
the last four letters by pencilling over them. They found
no significant difference in recognition between words with
blurred beginnings and words with blurred endings.
Experiment IV was conducted in order to determine
the retinal loci in which differential word recognition
might be observed, English words were presented at various
distances to the right or left of a fixation point. At two

4
locations significant differential word recognition was
found; the authors concluded that differential word recogni
tion occurs when words are centered approximately Io to 4
to the right or left of a fixation point.
In summary, the Mishkin and Forgays conclusions were
as follows:
(1) The accuracy of word recognition depends largely
upon the location of the retinal ares upon which the words
are projected.
(2) Reading results in special training of certain parts
of each left hemi-retina.
(3) Word recognition provides an exception to a general
visual equipotentiality.
(4) The left cerebral hemisphere is developed by reading
English, and the right cerebral hemisphere is developed by
reading Yiddish.
In a follow-up experiment Forgays (5) investigated
some developmental aspects of differential word recognition.
He reasoned that if the phenomenon depends upon the slow de
velopment of cell assemblies in the course of experience in
reading, it should be less pronounced with young children
than with adults. He used 6 male and 6 female subjects at
each grade level from the second to the tenth and in each of
the first three years of college. The subjects were shown

5
common English three- end four-letter words at an exposure
time of 150 milliseconds. The words were centered either
l-?v inches to the right or l-i| inches to the left of the
fixation point of an apparatus similar to that used by
Mishkin and Forgays (12), Each word was presented 5 times
on the right and 5 times on the left in random order. Up to
about the sixth- or seventh-grade there was no significant
or consistent difference in favor of either side of the vis
ual field. Above this grade level the right half of the
visual field gained an increasing recognition advantage over
the left half. Analysis of variance yielded significant
figures for increase in total number of words recognized
with increasing grade level, for superiority of recognition
in the right visual field, and for interaction of superior
ity of recognition in the right visual field with increasing
grade level, Forgays concluded that his hypothesis was sup
ported,
Orbach (13) modified Experiment II of the Mishkin
and Forgays study (12), Thirty-two readers of English and
Jewish were shown eight-letter English and Jewish words at
a distance of 7 feet* The words were presented in random
order either 4 46* to the left or 4 46' to the right of a
fixation point* Exposure times (constant for each subject)
varied from 20 to 100 milliseconds between subjects to allow

6
recognition by the slower subjects. Two months later the
subjects were recalled and shown five-letter words centered
3 from the fixation point under similar conditions* Eng
lish words were recognized significantly better on the
right, and Jewish word3 were recognized slightly better on
the right* Orbach then divided his subjects into 2 groups:
20 subjects who had learned English before Jewish and 12
subjects who had learned Jewish earlier than, or at the
same time as, English. The "Jewish-f irstn group recognized
Jewish words significantly better on the left, and the
"English-first" group recognized Jewish words significantly
better on the right. He reasoned that the earlier training
was the more important and concluded that the differential
training hypothesis was supported.
2. Views Opposed to that of Hebb
Each of the above authors makes specific oritical
reference to the theories of one or more of the following;
K. S. Lashley, K. Koffka, and W* Kdhler. The specific
point of controversy is the doctrine of equipotentiality
One view attacked is that of Lashley (11) to the effect
that . the explanation of perceptual generalization
is to be sought in the primitive organization of the nerv
ous tissue, rather than in any elaborate construction of
transcortical associative connections or of higher

7
coordination centers.'* Koffka (9) holds a similar view.
Hebb holds that the findings with regard to differ
ential word recognition argue against unqualified accept
ance of the doctrine of equipotentiality, which would pre
dict no difference in recognition of the same words at
equal distances to the right or left of a fixation point.
He maintains that perceptual generalization is largely
learned rather than innate. The common finding of visual
equipotentiality is explained by Hebb's theory as the re
sult of relatively uniform stimulation of the parts of the
retina except in the special case of reeding.
3. Experimental Results in Similar Studies
Although there have been relatively few studies in
the specific area of differential word recognition, a num
ber of other studies have investigated differences in rec
ognition between the right and left halves of the visual
field. It should be pointed out, however, that Mishkin and
Forgays are emphatic in their restriction of the term dif
ferential word recognition' to word recognition at certain
peripheral angles.
Anderson and Crosland (1, 2, 3) carefully investi
gated such factors as retinal locus, eye-dominance, and
handedness in studies of the visual span for briefly

8
exposed groups of letters. They used 120 subjects balanced
in handedness, eye-dominance, and sex. The stimuli con
sisted of cards printed with 9 letters in random order.
One-third of the cards were printed so that the fixation
point (in a modified Dodge tachistoscope) would fall over
the fifth or center letter; these cards were designated
center-prints'. Another third of the cards were printed
so that the fixation point fell over the first or left-most
letter; these were called right-prints. The remainder,
called 'left-prints', were printed so that the fixation
point fell over the ninth or right-most letter. They found
(1) that right-eyed subjects excelled in the left visual
field and left-eyed subjects excelled in the right field,
(2) that left-handed subjects were superior in the right
visual field and right-handed subjects were superior in the
left field, (3) that the effects of handedness were in the
same direction as those of eye-dominance but were not as
great, and (4) that all subjects were handicapped under the
condition of left-print but left-eyed subjects were the
most distressed.
Huey (7) reported in an early study that *if a con
text is unknown, the items grasped will lie to the right of
the fixation point and that if it ie known, perception will
apply largely to the left of the fixation point,* He found

9
that good readers attend more often to the area to the left
of a fixation point and that poor readers attend more often
to the area to the right of a fixation point in reading.
In the case of tachistoscopic recognition of lines of print
the tendency was toward better recognition of words to the
right of the fixation point; Huey attributed this finding
to the greater significance of word-beginnings for words on
the right, pointing out that the first letter in a word is
extremely important. In one experiment he found that words
with their first halves deleted were read at the rate of
0.33 word per second and that words with their last halves
deleted were read at the rate of 0.49 word per second; how
ever, he gives no data regarding the significance of this
diff erence.
LaGrone and Holland (10) reported results of their
studies of a group of second-grade school children. They
found that right-eyedness was related positively to right-
handedness, intelligence, reading ability, inferiority of
perceptual accuracy in the right visual field, and superi
ority in the left visual field. Similar results were found
for right-handed children. Heading ability was found to be
negatively related to superiority in the right visual
field; superior readers were more accurate in the left
field.

10
Poffenb6rger (14) studied reaction times to a light
presented to various portions of the retina. He found that
reaction time was consistently foster when the light fell
on either nasal retina rather than on either temporal ret
ina. He concluded that the nasal retinas are more effi
cient in recognition than the temporal retinas.
4. Possible Factors in Differential Word Recognition
Borne of the experimental results given in the pre
ceding section suggest that factors other than differential
training of the left hemi-retinos may play a part in dif
ferential word recognition.
An immediately evident suggestion comes from the
work of Huey (7). With words on the right of a fixation
point the important first letters are closer to the fixa
tion point (and fall closer to the more efficient central
parts of the retina) than with words on the left. It will
be remembered that Mishkin and Forgays (12) found no dif
ferences in recognition when the firBt half or the last
half of a word was blurred, but Huey found a large differ
ence when the first or last half was deleted. The relative
importance of word-beginnings might be a factor in differ
ential word recognition.
The results of Anderson and Crosland (lt 2, 3) and

11
of LaGrone and Holland (10) in the case of letters and nu
merals seem to indicate a possible effect by eye-dominance
upon differences in recognition between the halves of the
visual field.
The cited studies of differential word recognition
have all used binocular vision. It will be remembered that
Anderson and Crosland found eye-dominance effects in monoc
ular letter recognition, and it should be noted that
Poffenberger found faster reaction times for the nasal ret
inas. Monocular vision might be a factor in differential
word recognition.
A number of other factors might reasonably affect
differential word recognition scores. In the interests of
brevity they will simply be listed. Situational factors
include illumination of room and screen, exposure time for
the words, size of words, type of tachistoscope, style of
print, distance from word to subject, word frequency, in
structions, and scoring methods. Organisraic factors in
clude 3et or attention, reading ability, age, sex, intel
ligence, education, and various visual abilities and dis
abilities.
In the present study these factors will be either
investigated or controlled.

PROBLEM
Some of the studies cited above indicate that fac
tors other than differential training may play a part in
differential word recognition. We have listed several
such factors. The purpose of the present study is to test
hypotheses about two of them: monocular vision and word-
beginnings. Since data having a bearing on some of the
other possible factors will be obtained, such data will be
presented also.
The theoretical point at issue is the doctrine of
equipotentiality. If differential word recognition could
be shown to depend upon innate structural characteristics
of the eye or upon characteristics of the visual stimulus
object, the force of Hebb*s (6) argument against the doc
trine would be reduced. The doctrine would allow (1) dif
ferences in response by retinal areas of different acuity
and (2) differences in response to different stimulus pat
terns. The first hypothesis, below, is related to the
first of these differences; the second hypothesis is re
lated to both of then.
The studies of Anderson and Crosland (1, 8, 3) and
of LaGrone and Holland (10) suggest possible effects of
12

13
eye-dominance end of the eye used (right, left, or both to
gether). Poffenberger (14) reported that the nasal retinas
exhibit faster reaction time to a light than the temporal
retinas; if this finding could be generalized to word rec
ognition, it would indicate better recognition on the left
by the left eye and on the right by the right eye. It was
decided to investigate the effects of the eye used, check
ing for possible effects of eye-dorainonce. The hypothesis
of Experiment 1 is as follows: In a differential word rec
ognition situation the left eye will recognize words better
on the left and the right eye will recognize words better
on the right.
Huey's (7) arguments concerning the effects of
word-beginnings suggest that longer words will tend to show
greater differential word recognition* The advantage in
word-beginnings for longer words over shorter words to the
right of a fixation point may be illustrated with the fol
lowing diagram:
(Fixation
point)
already already
cut cut
C
D

14
The ratio /i/3 is larger than the ratio C/D; that is, the
beginnings of the longer words on the right fall relatively
closer to the center of the retina (in an area of more ef
ficient recognition)* If word-beginning3 are more impor
tant to recognition than word-endings, we would expect a
larger right-left difference in recognition scores for
longer words* It was decided to investigate this factor by
using three- and seven-letter words* The hypothesis of Ex
periment 2 is as follows: Seven-letter words will show
greater differential word recognition than three-letter
a
words.

SUBJECTS
One hundred twenty University of Florida students
served as subjects. Eighty-one subjects were selected from
the total group by use of pre-established criteria to form
the "Sample* group for testing the two hypotheses. The re
maining 39 subjects constituted the "Non-sample* group.
The selection criteria for the sample group were as
f ollows:
1. Age: 18 through 26
2. Education: college undergraduate
3. Visual ability (Keystone Visual Skills Tests I-Vll):
a. no failure of simultaneous vision
b. no noticeable vertical muscular imbalance
c. lateral muscular balance scores not to exceed
the limits of 7 and 11 in the far-point test
d. no failure of far-point fusion
e. minimum acuity score of 5 with each eye in the
far-point test
f. minimum stereopsis score of 9
4. Eye-dominance: the first 27 subjects in each of the
three eye-dominance groups (left, Intermediate, and
right) to meet the first three criteria.
Sixty men and 21 women met these criteria; 25 subjects
failed to meet the first three, and 14 more were rejected
by the fourth.
The subject groups are described more fully in
Appendix XI.
15

MATERIALS AND APPARATUS
1,Keystone Visual Skills Tests
2 Crider Eye-dominance Test
3, Word-recognition Apparatus
4* Mimeographed Record Forms
5. Room with Controlled Lighting
1. A Keystone Ophthalmic Telebinocular with Keystone
Visual Skills Tests I-VII and X-XIII (8) provided measures
of visual ability,
2. Crider1s (4) eye-dominance test provided measures
of sighting dominance.
3. The word-recognition apparatus included four major
components ae follows:
a. A stable, adjustable head-rest and blinder combi
nation was arranged so that each subject would have ap
proximately the same visual field. Height adjustments
could be accomplished by raising or lowering either the
head-rest or the subjects chair, but lateral movements
were not allowed. The rest placed the subjects eyes two
meters from the projector screen.
The blinder tunnel measured 32 cm. in length,
18 cm. in width, and 9.5 cm. in height. All surfaoes ex
posed to the subject were painted flat black. A pair of
16

17
hinged blinds at either end of the tunnel allowed use o
either or both eyes,
b. A Keystone Overhead Taohistoscope was placed below
and in front of the head-rest in such a position that the
projected image of Pica type averaged 2 cm, in height (for
tall letters). A cut-out mask reduced the size of the
rectangular area of light projected on the screen to 11 cm,
high by 57,5 cm. wide. Exposure times of 10, 20, 40, and
100 milliseconds were available,
c. A wooden reel was mounted on either side of the
taohistoscope, and a strip of acetate was cut to fit the
reels. Eleven lists of words were typed in Pice type on
*Radio-Matrt slides and taped to the plastic strip. Cali
bration marks were matched on the tachistoscope and on the
continuous plastic strip to allow presentation of words in
uniform positions.
The word lists totalled 168 words, of which 80
were duplicates (See Appendix III). The procedure by
which these words were selected involved 7 steps as fol
lows:
(1) Three-, five-, and seven-letter words having a
frequency of 900-1900 per 4,500,000 in the Lorge
Magazine Count (15) were listed.
(2) Proper names, contractions, and numbers were
eliminated from the lists.

18
(3) Three 20-word lists were randomly selected from
the five-letter word list. One 10-word list of
three-letter words was randomly selected. One 10-
word list of seven-letter words was randomly se
lected.
(4) The word-order within each list was randomized,
(5) The right or left position of a given word in
Lists P, St U, W, and Y was chosen at random with
the exception of the last 2 words in each list
(which were placed to equate the number of words on
the right and left in each list),
(6) The right or left position of words in Lists Q,
T, V, Xp and Z was reversed from that of the same
words in Lists P, S, U* W, and Y, respectively.
(7) A practice list was constructed from the first
8 words of the military phonetic alphabet. Word-
order and word-position were randomly selected*
d. The projection screen was constructed of fiber-
board covered by two coats of flat white paint* Centered
in the exposed area was a |-inch black tack-head used as a
fixation point* The extent of screen exposed in binocular
vision measured 50 cm* high by 120 cm* wide; the monocular
extents (limited by the blinds) were 50 cm* high by 67 cm*
wi de*
Words projected on the screen were centered 10*6
cm* (3 visual angle) to the right or left of the center of
the fixation point* The mean height of tall letters was 2
cm* Mean horizontal extents of words were as follows:
three-letter words 5*1 cm** five-letter words 8*5 cm*;
seven-letter words 11*9 cm*

19
4. The mimeographed record forms (See Appendix V) pro
vided spaces for recording such data as the subject*a name,
student number, age, sex, college year, writing hand,
Keystone Visual Skills Test scores, Crider eye-dominance
test scores, and response to each word exposed in the ex
periment.
5. The room in which the apparatus was set up measured
approximately 20 feet long by 12 feet wide by 10 feet high.
All doors and windows were covered to minimize illumination
from outside sources. Constant lighting was provided by
seven 48-lnch fluorescent tubes in overhead fixtures.

PBOCEDRE
1. Preliminary phase
2. Administration o Keystone Visual Skills Tests
3* Administration of Crider eye-dominance test
4, Experiment 1
5* Experiment 2
6* Final phase
1. In the preliminary phase the subject was greeted
and acquainted with the apparatus* His name and other per
sonal data were recorded.
2. The Keystone Visual Skills Tests I-VII and X-XIII
were administered according to the manual (3), and the sub
ject's scores were recorded. I glasses were used, this
fact was also recorded; the subject was asked to keep his
glasses on for the rest of the experiment.
3. Crider's eye-dominance test was administered ac
cording to the manual (4), and the subject's scores were
recorded. At this point the subject was placed in one of
four categories as follows; (R) right-eyed subjects (dom
inance score of 13-0 or 12-1) meeting the selection cri
teria under "Subjects" above; (L) left-eyed subjects (dom
inance score of 1-12 or 0-13) meeting the selection cri
teria; (I) intermediate subjects (dominance scores from
20

21
11-2 to 2-11) meeting the selection criteria; (X) all sub
jects failing to meet the selection criteria. Subjects in
the four categories followed parallel procedures in the
remainder of the experiment; that is, the first subject in
each category received the same treatment as the first
subject in each of the other categories, the second sub
jects received the same treatment, and so on for the re
maining subjects.
4. The procedure for Experiment 1 was as follows:
a. The subject was seated comfortably and the head
rest was adjusted.
b. The experimenter pointed out the fixation point
and gave the following instructions:
This is the fixation point. From now on whenever I
say "Ready, fix", look at the fixation point and do
not look away until after a word appears. The words
will be either right or left of the fixation point,
but you are not to look where the word is. Always
look at the fixation point whenever 1 say "Ready,
fix". Do you have any questions so far?
Now, there are two things I want to point out: one is
that the fixation point must be centered in the screen
as you look at it; the other is that you may occasion
ally find yourself paying attention to the black blind
when one eye is covered. If at any time you notice
that you do not have the fixation point centered or
that you are seeing the black blind with the covered
eye, let me know right away and we will wait until you
are ready again. Any questions now?
Next, we will go through a practice list to find a
shutter speed that will be right for you. $hen a word
appears on the screen, tell me what it was; if you are

23
not sure, guess* Any questions? Now, center the fixa
tion point and I will show you the first word. Ready,
fix.
c. The experimenter then presented the practice list
at a shutter speed of 10 milliseconds and reoorded the sub
jects responses. If the subject reported four or more
words correctly, this speed was accepted as hie shutter
speed for the rest of the experiment. If he did not report
as many as four words (50 per cent of the practice list)
correctly, the list was repeated at a shutter speed of 30
milliseconds. If four or more words were correctly re
ported, this speed was accepted; if not, the list was re
peated at 40 milliseconds exposure, and, if necessary, at
100 milliseconds exposure. Even if the subject failed to
reach the criterion of four words correct at 100 millisec
onds exposure, this was the speed accepted since slower
speeds allow gross eye movements. After the shutter speed
had been determined, the subject was asked for additional
questions and was reminded about fixation and retinal ri
valry.
d. Three 30-word lists of five-letter words were then
presented with a one-minute break between lists. The ex
perimenter watched the subjects eyes through the blinder
tunnel for gross eye movements. Columns 1, 2, and 3 of
Appendix IV Indicate the manner in which counterbalancing

83
was accomplished. The counterbalanced factors were the eye
used, the list used, and the word-position for a given
word. Binocular vision was used as a control
e. The subject was given a five-minute break and was
encouraged to report his experiences and to ask questions.
5. In Experiment 2 the subject was seated as in Ex
periment 1 and was reminded about fixation and retinal ri
valry. The procedure generally paralleled that of Experi
ment 1 with the following changes:
a. The practice list was not repeated.
b. The instructions were changed to the following:
That was all of the five-letter words; next we are go
ing to have three- and seven-letter words; everything
else is the same. Now, any questions?
o. Each subject operated under only one eye-used con
dition. The lists used and the counterbalancing order may
be seen in Columns 4 and 5 of Appendix IV.
6. In the final phase the subject was informed of his
scores, thanked, and released.
For a majority of the subjects A.C.E. scores and
reading test scores were available in University of Florida
files. These scores were recorded. (The reading test,
given by the C-3 department at the University of Florida,
tests rate of reading, comprehension, and vocabulary.)

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
1* Experiment I
Hypothesis. In a differential word recognition
situation the left eye will recognize words better on the
left and the right eye will recognize words better on the
right.
Re suits, Table 1* computed for the raw scores of
TABLE 1
DIFFERENTIAL WORD RECOGNITION IN MONOCULAR AND BINOCULAR
VISION BY THE SAMPLE GROUP, EXPERIMENT 1
Eye-
Word-
Mean No,
S. D.
t
used
position
of Words
Recognized
Left
Right
4.74
2.08
6.28***
Left
2.88
2.15
Right
Right
4.68
2.18
5.15***
Left
3.15
2.15
Both
Right
7.16
1.88
9.74***
Left
4.57
2.37
N: 81
Throughout this paper the following system of de
noting significance levels will be used: ,05 level of
confidence; ** ,oi level; *** ,001 level.
84

25
the sample group for five-letter words, indicates that word
recognition was significantly better on the right for the
left eye, for the right eye, and for both eyes together in
binocular vision.1
Conclusion. Since words were recognized signifi
cantly better on the right with either eye, the hypothesis
is rejected at the .001 level of confidence.
2. Experiment 2
Hypothesis. Seven-letter words will show greater
differential word recognition than three-letter words.
Results. An analysis of variance classifying
word-position (right or left) against word-length (three or
seven letters) was performed on the raw scores of the sam-
O
pie group. Table 2, below, indicates that word-position
differences were highly significant. The Interaction be
tween word-length and word-position (PxC) was also highly
1A preliminary analysis of variance (See Table 1,
Appendix I) showed no significant effects of eye-dominance
on differential word recognition (R-L) scores Accordingly,
results for the three dominance groups were combined.
p
Preliminary analyses of variance (See Tables 2
and 3, Appendix I) showed no significant effects of eye-
dominance or of the eye used upon differential word rec
ognition (R-L) scores. Accordingly, results for the three
dominance groups and for the three eye-used conditions
were combined.

26
TABLE 2
VARIANCE TABLE: WORD RECOGNITION SCORES FOR WORD-LENGTH
BY WORD-POSITION FOR THE SAMPLE GROUP, EXPERIMENT 2
Source
Sums of
d.f .
Mean
F
Square s
Square
Rows: Word-length
Columns: Word-
4.938
1
4.938
3.47
position
64.000
1
64.000
30. 30#****
Blocks: Subjects
273.222
80
3.440
Interaction: RxC
42.975
1
42.975
30.16***
Interaction: RxB
87.062
80
1.088
b
Interaction: BxC
169.000
80
2.112
1.48*
Interaction: RxBxC
114.025
80
1.425
Total
757.222
383
N: 81
^Throughout this paper a clash ( ) will be used
to indicate an F smaller than l.OO*
significant; that is, for the sample group differential
word recognition varied significantly with word-length
Table 3, below, indicates that the above-mentioned
interaction is in the expected direction; that is, the
(R-L) difference is greater in the case of seven-letter
words.
Conclusion. Since significantly greater differ
ential word recognition was found for seven-letter words
than for three-letter words, the hypothesis is not re
jected.

27
TABLE 3
MEAN NUMBER OF WORDS RECOGNIZED BY THE SAMPLE GROUP IN
EXPERIMENT 2 BY WORD-LENGTH AND WORD-POSITION
Word-length
Word-
position
Mean No,
of Words
Recognized
S.D.
t
Three
Right
2.53
1.56
0.76
Left
2.37
1.22
Seven
Right
3.51
1.42
7.56*45- *
Left
1.89
1.42
N: 81
3* Addenda
Practice effects. It was desired to investigate
praotice effects. This was possible for the five-letter
words of Experiment 1 (eye-used and word-position condi
tions were counterbalanced). In an analysis of variance
of raw scores for the sample group, word-position was clas
sified against the series-position of the three twenty-word
lists (that is, the first, second, or third list shown to
each subject; see Appendix IV), Table 5, Appendix I, indi
cates that there were no significant practice effects
either in total number of words recognized or in differen
tial word recognition. Table 6, Appendix I, shows the mean
number of words recognized by the sample group for the

28
first, second, and third lists shown (to a given subject)
in Experiment 1.
Other factors. Certain scores additional to those
needed to test the two hypotheses were available. It was
desired to determine whether any of them might be related
to differential word recognition.
A "Total Score" (R-L, a differential word recogni
tion score) was derived for all words recognized by each
subject. Table 7, Appendix I, indicates that no signifi
cant relation was found between total scores for the total
group3 and each of the following: (1) scores from the
Keystone Visual Skills Teats; (2) eye-dominance scores;
(3) A.C.E. scores; (4) reading test scores; (5) individual
differences in handedness, age, and education; (6) uncon
trolled experimental variables such as exposure time and
the use of glasses.* As a check the same operations were
performed on the data for the sample group only;5 the re
sults were similar (See Table 8, Appendix I).
^Table 4, Appendix I, (in conjunction with Tables
1 and 3, above) indicates that the non-sample group per
formed in essentially the same manner with respect to dif
ferential word recognition as the sample group; these
groups combined form the total group.
*Raw data may be obtained from the writer.
^he selection procedure restricted the distri
butions of some of these scores for the sample group.

29
A sex difference approaching significance (t- 2*42
for the total groupj t= 2*83 for the sample group) was
found In total scores* This finding indicated that raw
score differences should be investigated. Table 9* Appen
dix 1, shows that both male and female subjects recognized
words better on the right and that the right-left differ
ences were generally larger for the male subjects.

DISCUSSION
The results of Experiment 1, taken by themselves,
support the Mishkin and Forgays (12) hypothesis of supe
rior efficiency of the left hemi-retinas in word recogni
tion. Recognition was significantly better when the left
hemi-retinas were the stimulated areas; this was true for
both monocular and binocular vision. The finding by
Poffenberger (14) of faster reaction time to a light by
the nasal rather than the temporal retinas does not seem
to generalize to word recognition. Furthermore, the eye-
and field-dominance relations reported by Anderson and
Crosland (3) and by LeGrone and Holland (10) for letters
and numerals do not appear to hold in word recognition.
It was noted that the eye-used condition affected
differential word recognition in the case of five-letter
words. However, most of the difference was between bi
nocular and monocular conditions rather than between the
right and left eye. Also, differential, word recognition
was slightly greater for the left eye than for the right
eye; the rationale for Experiment 1 would predict the
opposite result. Our first hypothesis must be rejected.
30

31
The results o Experiment 2 suggest that the loca-
tion of the beginnings of words may be a factor in differ
ential word recognition. Longer English words would gain
a greater advantage in recognition from such a factor, and
differential word recognition was found significantly
greater for seven-letter words than for three-letter words.
(It may be noted that *word-beginnings* would also account
nicely for better recognition of Jewish words in the left
position.) It is unlikely that the above difference is due
to greater experience with the seven-letter words since
controls for frequency of word usage were instituted. On
the other hand, Forgays' (5) finding that differential word
recognition scores increased with increasing grade level
may well prevent acceptance of word-beginnings as a sole
explanation for differential word recognition; there is no
immediately evident reason why word-beginnings should be
more important at the higher grade levels. It is, of
course, possible that word-beginnings become increasingly
important to recognition in the course of experience in
reading.
Still, whether or not it is the sole explanation,
the factor of word-beginnings appears important in differ
ential word recognition. If so, the differential training
hypothesis in its present form cannot provide a necessary
and sufficient explanation for the findings.

32
Since the factor of word-beginnings offers a pos
sible explanation of differential word recognition that is
not dependent upon retinal locus as such, it is not neces
sary to reject the doctrine of equipotentiality on the ba
sis of previous studies in this area.
Differential word recognition was not found sig
nificant for three-letter words. No great importance is
attached to this result since Forgays (5) did find signif
icant differential word recognition for this word-length
and since the right-left differences, although not signif
icant, were in the expected direction. (In other words,
no claim is made that differential word recognition does
not occur for three-letter words.)
Women were found to show lesa differential word
recognition than men. However, this difference is not
granted great importance for two reasons: (1) the number
of women, 28, was relatively small, and (2) women showed
the same general pattern of differential word recognition
as men.
Further study in this area should include a func
tional investigation of the effects of word-beginnings.
A second question is the possibility of an interaction
between experience and word-beginnings. Finally, a pos
sible sex difference in differential word recognition
might be considered.

SUMMARY
1. The purpose of the present study was to investi
gate monocular vision and word-beginnings as possible fac
tors in differential word recognition. The first hypothe
sis was that the left eye would recognize words better on
the left and that the right eye would recognize words bet
ter on the right. The second hypothesis was that seven-
letter words would show greater differential word recogni
tion than three-letter words.
2. One hundred twenty University of Florida students
were shown lists of three-, five-, and seven-letter words
centered 3 to the right or left of a fixation point. Ex
posure times (not found related to differential word rec
ognition) ranged from 10 to 100 milliseconds between sub
jects. Recognition scores and other data were obtained.
A sample group of 81 subjects was selected from the total
group.
3. Words were recognized significantly better on the
right with either eye and with both eyes* Seven-letter
words showed significantly greater differential word rec
ognition than three-letter words. The first hypothesis
was rejected, but the second hypothesis was not rejected.
33

34
4* This study has shown that (1) differential word
recognition can occur in monocular vision and (2) the loca
tions of word-heginnings may affect superior recognition of
words to the right of a fixation point.

LIST OF REFERENCES
1. Anderson, I* and Crosland, H. R. The effects of eye-
dominance on 'Range of Attention' scores. Univ.
Oregon Publ.. 1933, .4, #4.
2. The effects of handedness on 'Range of At
tention' scores* Univ. Oregon Publ.. 1934, 4, #5.
3. The effects of combinations of handedness
and eyedness on letter-position, 'Range of Atten
tion' scores. Univ. Oregon Publ.. 1934, 4., #7.
4. Crider, B. A battery of tests for the dominant eye.
J. General Psychol.. 1944, 31, 179-190.
5. Forgays, D. G. The development of differential word
recognition. J. Exp. Psychol,. 1953, 45, 165-168.
6. Hebb, D. 0. The organization of behavior. New York:
Wiley, 1949.
7. Huey, E. B. The psychology and pedagogy of reading.
New York: Macmillan, 1908.
8. Keystone Vision Training Series: Part II, Visual
Skills and Supplementary Tests. Meadville, Penn.:
Keystone View Company, 1948.
9. Koffka, K. Principles of Gestalt psychology. New
York: Harcourt, Brace, 1935.
10. LaGrone, C. W., Jr. and Holland, B, F. Accuracy of
perception in peripheral vision in relation to
dextrality, intelligence, and reading ability.
Amer. J. Psychol.. 1943, 56. 592-598.
11. Lashley, K. S. The problem of cerebral organization
in vision. Biological Symposia. 1942, 7, 301-322.
12. Mishkin, M. and Forgays, D. G. Word recognition as a
function of retinal locus. J. Exp. Psychol..
1952, 4£, 43-48.
35

36
13. Orbach, J. Retinal locus as a factor in the recogni
tion of visually perceived words. Amer. J.
Psychol.. 1952, 65, 555-562.
14. Poffenberger, A. T., Jr. Reaction time to retinal
stimulation. Arch. Psychol.. 1912, #23.
15. Thorndike, I. L. and Lorge, I. The teacher's word
book of 30,000 words. New York: Columbia, 1944.

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX I TABLES 1-10
TABLE 1
VARIANCE TABLE: RECOGNITION SCORES (FIVE-LETTER WORDS)
FOR EYE-DOMINANCE BY EYE-USED (SAMPLE GROUP)
Source
Sums of
Squares
d.f.
Mean
Square
F
Between Dominance
Groups
23.761
2
11.880
1.16
Between Subjects in
Same Group
797.902
78
10.230
Total Between
_3ubje __821.663_
SO
Between Eye -use <3
47.761
2
23.880
4.98*#
Interaction: Eye-used
x Dominance Group
10.955
4
2.739
mmm
Interaction: Pooled
Subjects x Eye-
used
748.617
156
4.799
Total Within
JSubje csts
_807J5333_
- 162
Total
1628.996
242
N: 81
38

39
TABLE 2
VARIANCE TABLE: RECOGNITION SCORES (THREE-LETTER WORDS)
FOR EYE-DOMINANCE BY EYE-USED (SAMPLE GROUP)
Source
Sums of
Squares
d.f .
Mean
Square
F
Eye-dominance
7.580
2
3.790
1.12
Eye-used
5.358
2
2.679

Interaction
8.198
4
2.050

Within
243.778
72
3.386
Total
264.914
80
N: 81
TABLE 3
VARIANCE TABLE: RECOGNITION SCORES (SEVEN-LETTER WORDS)
FOR EYE-DOMINANCE BY EYE-USED (SAMPLE GROUP)
Source
Sums of
Square s
d.f.
Mean
Square
F
Eye-dominanc6
6.692
2
3.346
Eye-used
12.617
2
6.308
1.66
Interaction
8.494
4
2.124

Within
273.333
72
3.796
Total
301.136
80
N: 81

40
TABLE 4
MEAN NUMBER OF WORD'S RECOGNISED BY THE NON-SAMPLE AND
TOTAL GROUPS BY WORD-LENGTH AND WORD-POSITION
Word-
length
(letters)
Word-
posi
tion
Subject Group
Non-sample
Total
No. of
Words
t
No. of
Words
t
Five ,
Right
4.28
5.18***
4.59
8.19***
left eye
Left
2.18
2.65
Five,
Right
4.77
3.58***
4.71
6.82***
right eye
Left
2.85
3.05
Five,
Right
6.26
5.27***
6.87
10.85***
both eyes
Left
4.33
4.49
Three
Right
2.41
2.27*
2.49
1.85
Left
1.85
2.20
Seven
Right
2.92
569***
3.32
9.49***
Left
1.41
1.73
N, Non-sample: 39
N, Total: 120

41
TABLE 5
VARIANCE TABLE: WORD RECOGNITION SCORES (FIVE-LETTER WORDS)
FOR WORD-POSITION BY SERIES-POS IT ION (SAMPLE GROUP)
Source
Sums of
d.f.
Mean
F
Squares
Square
Rows* Word-position
Columns: Series-
484.002
1
484.002
94.26***
position
7.029
2
3.514

Blocks: Subjects
1009.597
80
12.620
Interaction: RxB
410.831
80
5.135
8.05***
Interaction: RxC
1.992
2
0.996
m
Interaction: BxC
845.971
160
5.287
2.11***
Interaction: RxBxC
401.675
160
2.510
Total
3161.097
485
N: 81
c"Series-position* refers to the occurrence of a
given word In the first, second, or third list shown to a
given subject (see Appendix IV),
TABLE 6
MEAN NUMBER OF WORDS RECOGNIZED BY THE SAMPLE GROUP
FOR EACH SERIES-POSITION BY WORD-POSITION
Word-
Series-position
position
1
2
3
Right
5.27
5.62
5.69
Left
3.46
3.53
3.60
N: 81

42
TABLE 7
RELATION OF VISUAL AND OTHER FACTORS TO
TOTAL SCORE (R-L, TOTAL GROUP)
Item
N
d.f .
Result*3
1* (Keystone Telebinocular)
a, Far-point muscular balance
120
10/109
Fs
b. Far-point fusion
120
2/117
Fz 1*13
c* Far-point usable vision,
right eye
120
8/111
t
i
it
fci
d. Far-point acuity, right
eye
120
7/112
Fz
e. Difference, (d)-(c)
120
4/115
Fr
f* Far-point usable vision,
left eye
120
9/110
Fs 1.44
g* Far-point acuity, left eye
h. Difference, (g)-(f)
120
8/111
Fs 1*37
120
5/114
Fs
i* Difference, (f)-(c)
120
11/108
Fs
j* Difference, (g)-(d)
120
11/108
F*
k. Far-point stereopsis
120
5/114
F u
1. Near-point muscular
balance
120
10/109
Fs 1*37
m* Near-point fusion
120
2/117
Fs
n* Near-point usable vision,
right eye
120
10/109
Fa
o. Near-point acuity, right
eye
120
8/111
F-
p* Difference, (o)-(n)
120
7/112
F
q. Near-point usable vision,
left eye
120
10/109
F
r* Near-point acuity, left
eye
120
10/109
Fa
s. Difference, (r)-(q)
120
5/114
Fa 2*16
t* Difference, (q)-(n)
120
12/107
Fa
u. Difference, (r)-(o)
120
11/108
Fa
^Various statistics were used for convenience*
The F-ratios are from simple analyses of variance per
formed on the total (R-L) scores* Subject groups were
set up on the basis of scores for the variables listed
under "Item**

43
TABLE 7 Continued
Item
N
d.f .
Result
2. Eye-dominance, Crider's test
120
12/107
F- 1.06
3. (A.C.E. test)
a. Scores available vs, none
120
t 0.85
b. Quantitative score
87
rs -.13
c. Linguistic score
87
r- -.15
d. Total score
87
r* -.17
4, (Beading test)
a. Scores available vs. none
120
t- 0.75
b. Reading rate
67
r -.02
c. Story comprehension score
67
rs -.17
d. Vocabulary soore
67
r- -.22
e. Total comprehension score
67
r= -.14
f. Total score
67
r* -.21
5, (Miscellaneous)
a. Handedness
120
t 1.06
b. Age
120
10/109
Fa 1.45
c. Education (college year)
120
4/115
Fa 1.46
d. Sex
120
ta 2.42
e. Exposure time
120
3/116
Fa 1.66
f. S's wearing glasses vs.
those not
120
ta 0.58
g. Sample vs. non-sample S's
120
ta 0,29
h. S's meeting the iirst 3
selection criteria vs.
those not
120
ta 0.16

44
TABLE 8
RELATION OF VISUAL AND OTHER FACTORS TO
TOTAL SCORE (R-L, SAMPLE GROUP)
Itera
N
d.f .
Result
1* (Keystone Telebinocular)
a. Far-point muscular balance
81
7/73
Fs
b. Far-point fusion
81
1/79
Fs 1*70
c. Far-point usable vision,
right eye
81
7/73
Fs
d. Far-point acuity, right
eye
81
5/75
Fs
e. Difference, (d)-(c)
81
4/76
Fs
f. Far-point usable vision,
left eye
81
5/75
F 2.28
g. Far-point acuity, left eye
81
5/75
Fs
h. Difference, (g)-(f)
81
Z/ll
Fs 2,47
i. Difference, (f)-(c)
81
8/72
Fs 1.07
4* Difference, (g)-(d)
81
6/74
Fs
k. Far-point stereopsis
81
3/77
Fs
1. Near-point muscular
balance
81
8/72
Fs 1*55
ra. Near-point fusion
81
2/78
Fs
n. Near-point usable vision,
right eye
81
9/71
i
i
ii
fc
o* Near-point acuity, right
eye
81
8/72
Fs
p. Difference, (o)-(n)
81
6/74
Fs
q. Near-point usable vision,
left eye
81
8/72
it
f
i
r. Near-point acuity, left
eye
81
8/72
Fs
s. Difference, (r)-(q)
81
5/75
Fs 1.07
t. Difference, (q)-(n)
81
12/68
Fs
u. Difference, (r)-(o)
81
ioAo
Fs
2* Eye-dominance, Crider's test
81
12/68
1
i
fi
3* (A.C.E. test)
a. Scores available vs* none
81
ts 1.18
b Quantitative score
59
rs -.02
c. Linguistic score
59
rs -.06
d. Total score
59
rs -.13

45
TABLE 8 Continued
Item
N
d.f.
Result
4* (Reading test)
a. Scores available vs* none
81
t* 0.30
b* Reading rate
46
r* + *03
c. Story comprehension score
46
r -.15
d* Vocabulary score
46
r -.19
e* Total comprehension score
46
r* -.12
f* Total score
46
r -*18
5* (Miscellaneous)
a* Handedness
81
t* 0.84
b. Age
81
8/72
F* 1.54
c* Education (college year)
81
4/76
F
d. Sex
81
t* 2.83**
e* Exposure time
81
3/77
F 1.57
f. Ss wearing glosses vs.
those not
81
t 0.62

46
TABLE 9
MEAN NUMBER OF WORDS RECOGNIZED BY SEX,
WORD-LENGTH, AND WORD-POSITION
Word-
length
(letters)
Word-
posi-
tion
Sex
Males
Females
No. of
Words
t
No. of
Word 8
t
Five,
Right
4.66
867***
4.36
1.67
left eye
Left
2.38
3.54
Five'
Right
4.71
8.78***
4.71
1.63
right eye
Left
2.79
3.89
Five,
Right
6.76
9.89***
7.21
4.63***
both eyes
Left
4.20
5.46
Three
Right
2.51
2.02*
2.43
0.20
Left
2.15
2.36
Seven
Right
3.17
7.73***
3.79
5.47***
Left
1.65
2.00
N, Males: 92
N, Females: 28

47
TABLE 10
RAW DATA: NUMBER OF WORDS RECOGNIZED BY EACH
SUBJECT UNDER EACH CONDITION6
or 7 letters), the position of the words (right or left of
the fixation point), and the eye used (left, right, or both
together). Mximum scores under each combination of condi
tions: 10 for five-letter words and 5 for three- and seven-
letter words*

48
TABLE 10 Continued

49
TABLE 10 Continued

50
TABLE 10 -- Continued

51
TABLE 10 Continued

52
TABLE 10 Continued
Lll
Right
1
4
5
6
3
Left
1
6
4
7
3
L12
Right
1
6
5
9
5
Left
3
3
2
6
1
LI 3
Right
2
4
3
9
5
Left
4
1
1
7
1
LI 4
Right
3
8
6
9
4
Left
3
1
1
3
4
LI 5
Right
2
6
4
7
2
Left
2
3
1
0
0
LI 6
Right
2
7
4
8
5
Left
2
6
4
5
1
L17
Right
3
7
4
8
3
Left
1
4
4
5
3
LI 8
Right
5
1
7
8
3
Left
3
1
0
1
0
L19
Eight
5
2
6
8
5
Left
2
2
1
7
1
L20
Right
3
W
2
6
4
Left
1
0
0
1
0
LSI
Right
5
6
5
4
3
Left
2
0
0
3
3
L22
Right
0
4
2
6
3
Left
1
1
0
2
1
L23
Right
0
6
3
9
4
Left
2
4
2
1
0
L24
Right
1
1
2
7
2
Left
1
0
1
1
0

53
TABLE 10 Continued
L25
Right
3
2
3
5
1
Left
2
2
3
7
2
L26
Right
3
4
4
4
4
Left
0
1
0
0
0
L27
Right
2
6
5
5
5
Left
1
0
2
3
1
X 1
Right
2
0
8
7
3
Left
1
4
6
6
2
X 2
Right
3
3
6
5
3
Left
1
0
2
1
0
X 3
Right
2
4
4
4
3
Left
2
2
3
1
3
X 4
Right
2
3
5
10
2
Left
2
2
7
4
0
X 5
Right
3
9
9
10
4
Left
3
9
7
7
4
X 6
Right
2
5
4
7
3
Left
2
3
2
5
1
X 7
Right
2
4
6
5
4
Left
1
0
3
0
0
X 8
Right
1
3
2
2
0
Left
1
7.
V
0
3
1
X 9
Right
1
4
3
3
1
Left
1
1
0
1
0
X10
Right
2
7
7
6
4
Left
1
5
1
7
2
Xll
Right
4
3
4
6
2
Left
2
1
1
1
0

54
TABLE 10 Continued
X12
Right
2
4
4
5
3
Left
1
2
2
5
1
XI3
Right
1
3
1
6
0
Left
2
1
2
6
0
X14
Right
2
6
2
6
2
Left
2
1
3
3
1
XI5
Right
3
0
3
9
2
Left
1
2
1
2
0
X16
Right
2
2
6
9
1
Left
4
4
6
6
4
X17
Right
3
6
9
7
3
Left
2
3
2
8
3
XI8
Right
2
7
3
3
3
Left
5
1
6
3
2
X19
Right
5
4
3
6
4
Left
3
1
3
6
4
X20
Right
5
7
1
8
4
Left
1
2
2
5
0
X21
Right
3
1
7
5
3
Left
1
4
0
5
3
X22
Right
1
1
6
8
5
Left
2
5
7
6
4
X23
Right
5
3
6
6
5
Left
1
1
1
2
1
X24
Right
3
1
1
9
1
Left
0
0
1
5
1
X25
Right
3
8
6
7
3
Left
3
2
3
6
4

55
TABLE 10 Continuad

APPENDIX II. DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT GROUPS
Item
Subject Group
Sample
Non
sample
Total
N
81
39
120
1. Mean age
21,5
23.3
22.1
2. Age range
18-26
17-54
17-54
3. No, o malee
60
32
92
4, Mean college year
2.6
2.4
2.6
5. No, o left-handed S*a
10
1
11
6. No. of S's wearing glasses
22
9
31
7. Mean Crider eye-dominance
7.0
11.4-
8.4-
test score
6.0
1.6
4.6
8, (A.C.E, scores)
a. No. having scores
59
28
87
b. Mean quantitative score
45.1
42.3
44.2
c. Mean linguistic score
71.9
67.0
70.3
d. Mean total score
117.0
109.3
114.5
9. (Reading test scores)
a. No, having scores
46
21
67
b. Mean reading rate
307.3
323.5
312.4
c. Mean story compre
hension score
15.0
14,5
14.9
d. Mean vocabulary score
47.2
45.1
46.5
e. Mean total compre
hension score
31.2
29.5
30.7
f. Mean total score
78.4
74.7
77.2
56

57
APPENDIX II Continued
Item
Subject Group
Sample
Non
sample
Total
10. (Keystone Visual Skills
Tests scores)
a. No. of failures in
simultaneous vision
0
0
0
b. No. of failures in
vertical muscular
balance
0
0
0
c. Mean far-point lateral
muscular balance score
9.1
9.0
9.1
d. No. of failures in
far-point fusion
0
1
1
e. Mean far-point acuity
score, right eye
9.1
in
.
GO
8.9
f. Mean far-point acuity
score, left eye
9.1
03

0)
00

CO
g. No. of failures in
far-point stereopsis
0
3
3
h. Mean near-point
lateral muscular
balance score
5,0
4.9
4*9
i. No. of failures in
near-point fusion
15
5
20
j. Mean near-point acuity
score, right eye
18.2
17.9
18.1
k. Mean near-point acuity
score* left eye
17.7
17.2
17.6

APPENDIX III. SRD LISTS
(The word lists with the Lorge Magazine Count Frequency per
4#500|000 words for each word in the main lists.)
List
u
List
w
List
Y
List
S
Word
f
Word
f
Word
f
Word
f
cover
1323
reach
1457
along
1534
cut
943
black
1083
group
1032
taken
1474
age
1022
since
1425
cause
940
often
1527
red
1036
dress
1790
quite
1732
sense
1080
f ar
1835
green
1025
child
1574
train
1019
hot
1006
ago
1107
paint
1107
human
963
serve
1195
cup
1336
color
1541
force
1019
chair
1298
boy
1567
f ront
1094
carry
1500
least
1254
set
1636
sound
1305
alone
1305
stand
1707
big
1773
table
1325
dance
1167
happy
1449
(Mean)
1326
fight
1391
touch
1016
st ate
1564
today
1104
story
1651
known
1091
glass
1001
paper
1235
close
1862
early
1022
given
1054
reply
1249
power
911
stood
1891
point
1377
Practice
List
learn
1304
price
1026
among
1051
large
1697
small
1818
plant
944
watch
1722
study
942
floor
1001
george
laugh
1768
whole
1663
order
1477
able
tried
1557
built
1152
begin
1109
baker
(Mean)
1325
(Mean)
1307
(Mean)
1313
uog
Charlie
how
easy
fox
58

APPENDIX III
Continued
List P
Word f
service
970
present
1075
Lists V,
X, Z, Tt and Q are
whether
1094
the same
words as Lists U,
promise
1036
W. Y, S,
and P, respec-
already
1100
tively*
The only differ-
ence is
that word-positions
believe
1371
(right or left) are re
picture
1463
versed in the alternate
between
1526
list s.
country
1714
perhaps
1833
(Mean)
1318

APPENDIX IV. ORDER OF PRESENTATION
(Order of presentation of word lists for each subject.
Each list contained words both on the right and on the
left; see Appendix III. The first letter in each pair in
dicates the eye used, and the second letter indicates the
list used; for example, the first list shown to Subject
R 1 was List W, and for this list he used his left eye.)
Sub-
Presentation Order
Sub-
Presentation Order
ject
Ject
No.
1
2
3
4
5
No.
1
2
3
4
5
R 1
LW
RY
SU
LP
LT
R24
RZ
LV
BX
LS
LP
R 2
LX
BZ
RV
RP
RT
R25
BV
RX
LZ
BS
BP
R 3
RU
BW
LY
BP
BT
R26
RZ
LV
BX
LS
LP
R 4
RZ
LV
BX
LS
LP
R27
RU
BW
LY
BQ
BS
R 5
BY
LU
RW
RS
RP
I 1
LV?
RY
BU
BP
BT
R 6
BV
RX
LZ
BS
BP
I 2
LX
BZ
RV
RP
RT
R 7
LW
RY
BU
LQ
LS
I 3
RU
BW
LY
LP
LT
R 8
LX
BZ
RV
RQ
RS
I 4
RZ
LV
BX
LS
LP
R 9
RU
BW
LY
BQ
BS
I 5
BY
LU
RW
RS
RP
RIO
RZ
LV
BX
LT
LQ.
I 6
BV
RX
LZ
BS
BP
Rll
BY
LU
RW
RT
RQ
I 7
LW
RY
BU
LQ
LS
R12
BV
RX
LZ
BT
BQ
I 8
LX
BZ
RV
RQ
RS
R13
LW
RY
BU
LP
LT
I 9
RU
BW
LY
BQ
BS
R14
LX
BZ
RV
RP
RT
110
RZ
LV
BX
LT
LQ
R15
RU
BW
LY
BP
BT
Ill
LX
BZ
RV
RP
RT
R16
RZ
LV
BX
LS
LP
112
BV
RX
LZ
BT
BQ
R17
LX
BZ
RV
RQ
RS
113
LW
RY
BU
LP
LT
R18
RU
BW
LY
BQ
BS
114
RU
BW
LY
BP
BT
R19
RZ
LV
BX
LT
LQ
115
BY
LU
RW
RS
RP
R20
BY
LU
RW
RT
RQ
116
LW
RY
BU
LQ
LS
R21
BV
RX
LZ
BT
BQ
117
RU
BW
LY
BQ
BS
R22
LX
BZ
RV
RP
RT
118
RZ
LV
BX
LT
LQ
R23
LX
BZ
RV
RP
RT
119
BY
LU
RW
RT
RQ
60

61
APPENDIX IV Continued
Sub
ject
No.
Presentation Order
Sub
ject
No.
Presentation Order
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
120
3V
RX
LZ
BT
BQ
L25
LX
RZ
BV
LQ
LS
121
LX
BZ
RV
RQ
RS
L26
BW
RY
ID
RS
RQ
122
BY
ID
RW
RT
RQ
L27
LV
BX
RZ
BP
BT
123
BY
LU
RW
RT
RQ
X 1
LW
RY
BU
LP
LT
124
LY
BU
RW
BS
BP
X 2
LX
BZ
RV
RP
RT
125
BV
RX
LZ
BT
bq
X 3
RU
BW
LY
BP
BT
126
LW
BY
RU
L3
LP
X 4
RZ
LV
BX
LS
LP
127
LW
RY
BU
LQ
LS
X 5
BY
ID
RW
RS
RP
L 1
LW
RY
BU
LP
LT
X 6
RX
LZ
BV
BP
BT
L 2
BY
ID
RW
RT
RQ
X 7
RZ
LV
BX
LS
LP
L 3
LX
BZ
RV
RP
RT
X 8
BV
RX
LZ
BS
BP
L 4
RU
BW
LY
BP
BT
X 9
BY
ID
RW
RS
RP
L 5
RZ
LV
BX
LS
LP
X10
BV
RX
LZ
BS
BP
L 6
BY
ID
RW
RS
RP
Xll
LW
BY
BU
LQ
LS
L 7
BV
RX
LZ
BS
BP
X12
LX
BZ
RV
RQ
RS
L 8
LW
RY
BU
LQ
LS
X13
LW
RY
BU
LP
LT
L 9
LX
BZ
RV
RQ
RS
X14
RU
BW
LY
BP
BT
L10
RU
BW
LY
BQ
BS
XI5
BY
ID
RW
RS
RP
Lll
R Z
LV
BX
LT
LQ
X16
LW
RY
BU
LP
LT
L12
BY
ID
RW
RT
RQ
X17
LX
BZ
RV
RP
RT
L13
BV
RX
LZ
BT
BQ
XI8
RU
BW
LY
BP
BT
L14
RU
BW
LY
BP
BT
XI9
BV
RX
LZ
BS
BP
LI 5
RZ
LV
BX
LS
LP
X20
BY
ID
RW
RS
RP
L16
RZ
LV
BX
LT
LQ
X21
BV
RX
LZ
BS
BP
LI 7
BY
ID
RW
RS
RP
X2S
LW
RY
BU
LQ
LS
LI 8
BV
RX
LZ
BS
BP
X23
LX
BZ
RV
RQ
RS
L19
LW
RY
BU
LQ
LS
X24
LW
RY
BU
LQ
LS
L20
LX
BZ
RV
RQ
RS
X25
LX
BZ
RV
RP
RT
L21
RU
BW
LY
BQ
BS
X26
RZ
LV
BX
LT
LQ
L22
RZ
LV
BX
LT
LQ
X27
LX
BZ
RV
RQ
RS
L23
BY
ID
RW
RT
RQ
X28
BY
ID
RW
RT
RQ
L24
BV
RX
LZ
BT
BQ
X29
BV
RX
LZ
BT
BQ

62
APPENDIX IV Continued
Sub
ject
No*
Presentation Order
Sub
ject
No.
Presentation Order
1
2
3
4
5
1
8
3
4
5
X30
HO
BW
LY
BQ
BS
X35
RV
LX
BZ
bq
BS
X31
HU
BW
LY
BP
BT
X36
LW
RY
BO
LP
LT
X32
LW
RY
BO
LP
LT
X37
RZ
LV
BX
RS
RP
X33
LV
BX
RZ
RS
RP
X38
LX
BZ
RV
BQ
BS
X34
RX
BZ
LV
LT
LQ
X39
LU
BW
RY
LS
LP

APPENDIX V. SAMPLE BECORD FORMS
NAME: STUDENT NUMBER:
AGE: SEX: COLLEGE CLASSIFICATION:
WRITING HAND: A.C.E. C-31:
KEYSTONE TELEBINOCULAR
1. s.v.
Pase
Fail
2. V.I.
Pass
Fall
3* L.I.
1
2
3
4
5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13 14
15
4. F.
3
4-3
4
5. U.V.
1
2
3
4
5
6 7
8 9
10
6. U.V.
1
2
3
4
5
6 7
8 9
10
7. S.
1
2
3
4
5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12
10. L.I.
2
3
4
5
6
7 8
9 10
11. F.
3
4-3
4
12. U.V.
6
7
8
9
10 11
12
13 14
15 16 17
18
19
20
21
22
13. U.V.
6
7
8
9
10 11
12
13 14
15 16 17
18
19
20
21
22
CRIDER TEST
PRACTICE LIST
TEST
NAME R. L.
1.
Rina
1.
5.
2.
Card
3.
Box
2.
6.
4.
Cone
5.
Ophthoscone
3.
7.
6.
Spot
7.
Mirror
4.
8.
63

64
STUDENT
NUMBER:
DATE:
TIME:
EYE:
EYE;
EYE:
EYE:
LIST:
LIST:
LIST:
LIST:
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
2.
3.
3.
3.
3.
4*
4.
4.
4.
5._
5.
5.
5.
6.
6.
6.
6.
7.
7.
7.
7.
8.
8.
8.
8.
9.
9.
9.
9.
10.
10.
10.
10.
11.
11.
11.
11.
12.
12.
12.
12.
13.
13.
13.
13.
14.
14.
14.
14.
15.
15.
15.
15.
16.
16.
16.
16.
17.
17.
17.
17.
18.
18.
18.
18.
19.
19.
19.
19.
20.
20.
20.
20.

BIOGRAPHICAL ITEMS
Joseph R, Melville was born at Fort Myers, Florida,
on July 22, 1929* In 1947 he entered Vanderbilt University,
where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa* He held a Founder's
Scholarship for four years* In 1951 he received the degree
of Bachelor of Arts, Magna Cud Lauds*
Shortly after graduation he entered the United
States Marine Corps* In Korea he served as a forward ob
server and as a fire control officer with the Eleventh
Marine Regiment*
In 1954 he entered the University of Florida, where
he was elected to Phi Kappa Phi* He held a graduate assist-
antship, a Graduate School Fellowship, and an Arts and
Sciences Fellowship* In 1955 he received the degree of
Master of Arts*

66
This dissertation was prepared under the direction
of the chairman of the candidates supervisory committee
and has been approved by all members of that committee*
It was submitted to the Dean of the College of Arts and
Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and was approved as
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.
January 26, 1957
Dean, College of Arts and
Sciences
Dean, Graduate School
SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE



PBOCEDRE
1. Preliminary phase
2. Administration o Keystone Visual Skills Tests
3* Administration of Crider eye-dominance test
4, Experiment 1
5* Experiment 2
6* Final phase
1. In the preliminary phase the subject was greeted
and acquainted with the apparatus* His name and other per
sonal data were recorded.
2. The Keystone Visual Skills Tests I-VII and X-XIII
were administered according to the manual (3), and the sub
ject's scores were recorded. I glasses were used, this
fact was also recorded; the subject was asked to keep his
glasses on for the rest of the experiment.
3. Crider's eye-dominance test was administered ac
cording to the manual (4), and the subject's scores were
recorded. At this point the subject was placed in one of
four categories as follows; (R) right-eyed subjects (dom
inance score of 13-0 or 12-1) meeting the selection cri
teria under "Subjects" above; (L) left-eyed subjects (dom
inance score of 1-12 or 0-13) meeting the selection cri
teria; (I) intermediate subjects (dominance scores from
20


83
was accomplished. The counterbalanced factors were the eye
used, the list used, and the word-position for a given
word. Binocular vision was used as a control
e. The subject was given a five-minute break and was
encouraged to report his experiences and to ask questions.
5. In Experiment 2 the subject was seated as in Ex
periment 1 and was reminded about fixation and retinal ri
valry. The procedure generally paralleled that of Experi
ment 1 with the following changes:
a. The practice list was not repeated.
b. The instructions were changed to the following:
That was all of the five-letter words; next we are go
ing to have three- and seven-letter words; everything
else is the same. Now, any questions?
o. Each subject operated under only one eye-used con
dition. The lists used and the counterbalancing order may
be seen in Columns 4 and 5 of Appendix IV.
6. In the final phase the subject was informed of his
scores, thanked, and released.
For a majority of the subjects A.C.E. scores and
reading test scores were available in University of Florida
files. These scores were recorded. (The reading test,
given by the C-3 department at the University of Florida,
tests rate of reading, comprehension, and vocabulary.)


61
APPENDIX IV Continued
Sub
ject
No.
Presentation Order
Sub
ject
No.
Presentation Order
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
120
3V
RX
LZ
BT
BQ
L25
LX
RZ
BV
LQ
LS
121
LX
BZ
RV
RQ
RS
L26
BW
RY
ID
RS
RQ
122
BY
ID
RW
RT
RQ
L27
LV
BX
RZ
BP
BT
123
BY
LU
RW
RT
RQ
X 1
LW
RY
BU
LP
LT
124
LY
BU
RW
BS
BP
X 2
LX
BZ
RV
RP
RT
125
BV
RX
LZ
BT
bq
X 3
RU
BW
LY
BP
BT
126
LW
BY
RU
L3
LP
X 4
RZ
LV
BX
LS
LP
127
LW
RY
BU
LQ
LS
X 5
BY
ID
RW
RS
RP
L 1
LW
RY
BU
LP
LT
X 6
RX
LZ
BV
BP
BT
L 2
BY
ID
RW
RT
RQ
X 7
RZ
LV
BX
LS
LP
L 3
LX
BZ
RV
RP
RT
X 8
BV
RX
LZ
BS
BP
L 4
RU
BW
LY
BP
BT
X 9
BY
ID
RW
RS
RP
L 5
RZ
LV
BX
LS
LP
X10
BV
RX
LZ
BS
BP
L 6
BY
ID
RW
RS
RP
Xll
LW
BY
BU
LQ
LS
L 7
BV
RX
LZ
BS
BP
X12
LX
BZ
RV
RQ
RS
L 8
LW
RY
BU
LQ
LS
X13
LW
RY
BU
LP
LT
L 9
LX
BZ
RV
RQ
RS
X14
RU
BW
LY
BP
BT
L10
RU
BW
LY
BQ
BS
XI5
BY
ID
RW
RS
RP
Lll
R Z
LV
BX
LT
LQ
X16
LW
RY
BU
LP
LT
L12
BY
ID
RW
RT
RQ
X17
LX
BZ
RV
RP
RT
L13
BV
RX
LZ
BT
BQ
XI8
RU
BW
LY
BP
BT
L14
RU
BW
LY
BP
BT
XI9
BV
RX
LZ
BS
BP
LI 5
RZ
LV
BX
LS
LP
X20
BY
ID
RW
RS
RP
L16
RZ
LV
BX
LT
LQ
X21
BV
RX
LZ
BS
BP
LI 7
BY
ID
RW
RS
RP
X2S
LW
RY
BU
LQ
LS
LI 8
BV
RX
LZ
BS
BP
X23
LX
BZ
RV
RQ
RS
L19
LW
RY
BU
LQ
LS
X24
LW
RY
BU
LQ
LS
L20
LX
BZ
RV
RQ
RS
X25
LX
BZ
RV
RP
RT
L21
RU
BW
LY
BQ
BS
X26
RZ
LV
BX
LT
LQ
L22
RZ
LV
BX
LT
LQ
X27
LX
BZ
RV
RQ
RS
L23
BY
ID
RW
RT
RQ
X28
BY
ID
RW
RT
RQ
L24
BV
RX
LZ
BT
BQ
X29
BV
RX
LZ
BT
BQ


2
reading, the left hemi-retinas receive more recognition
training than the right hemi-retinaa; (5) therefore, words
projected on the left hemi-retinas will be more easily rec
ognized than words projected on the right hemi-retinas.
The Mishkin and Forgays study (12) consisted of
four experiments. In Experiment I eight-letter English
words were exposed briefly to 16 adult subjects. The fixa
tion point was 24 inches from the subject, and the words
were presented randomly in the following positions (mea
sured from the center of the word to the fixation point):
1-j? inches above, l-£ inches below, 2 inches to the right,
or 2 inches to the left. In a second series the words al
ways appeared in the same place, and the fixation point was
shifted at random among the above four locations; this was
done as a control for attention factors. Controls for fam
iliarity of prefixes and suffixes, shifts in fixation, and
familiarity with the task were observed. It was found that
English words were recognized significantly better in the
lower half of the visual field and in the right half of the
visual field.
Experiment II was intended to control for unidirec
tional factors favoring the right half of the visual field,
such as differences in acuity between the separate halves
of the retinas, selective attention to the right half of


APPENDIX III
Continued
List P
Word f
service
970
present
1075
Lists V,
X, Z, Tt and Q are
whether
1094
the same
words as Lists U,
promise
1036
W. Y, S,
and P, respec-
already
1100
tively*
The only differ-
ence is
that word-positions
believe
1371
(right or left) are re
picture
1463
versed in the alternate
between
1526
list s.
country
1714
perhaps
1833
(Mean)
1318


41
TABLE 5
VARIANCE TABLE: WORD RECOGNITION SCORES (FIVE-LETTER WORDS)
FOR WORD-POSITION BY SERIES-POS IT ION (SAMPLE GROUP)
Source
Sums of
d.f.
Mean
F
Squares
Square
Rows* Word-position
Columns: Series-
484.002
1
484.002
94.26***
position
7.029
2
3.514

Blocks: Subjects
1009.597
80
12.620
Interaction: RxB
410.831
80
5.135
8.05***
Interaction: RxC
1.992
2
0.996
m
Interaction: BxC
845.971
160
5.287
2.11***
Interaction: RxBxC
401.675
160
2.510
Total
3161.097
485
N: 81
c"Series-position* refers to the occurrence of a
given word In the first, second, or third list shown to a
given subject (see Appendix IV),
TABLE 6
MEAN NUMBER OF WORDS RECOGNIZED BY THE SAMPLE GROUP
FOR EACH SERIES-POSITION BY WORD-POSITION
Word-
Series-position
position
1
2
3
Right
5.27
5.62
5.69
Left
3.46
3.53
3.60
N: 81


19
4. The mimeographed record forms (See Appendix V) pro
vided spaces for recording such data as the subject*a name,
student number, age, sex, college year, writing hand,
Keystone Visual Skills Test scores, Crider eye-dominance
test scores, and response to each word exposed in the ex
periment.
5. The room in which the apparatus was set up measured
approximately 20 feet long by 12 feet wide by 10 feet high.
All doors and windows were covered to minimize illumination
from outside sources. Constant lighting was provided by
seven 48-lnch fluorescent tubes in overhead fixtures.


4
locations significant differential word recognition was
found; the authors concluded that differential word recogni
tion occurs when words are centered approximately Io to 4
to the right or left of a fixation point.
In summary, the Mishkin and Forgays conclusions were
as follows:
(1) The accuracy of word recognition depends largely
upon the location of the retinal ares upon which the words
are projected.
(2) Reading results in special training of certain parts
of each left hemi-retina.
(3) Word recognition provides an exception to a general
visual equipotentiality.
(4) The left cerebral hemisphere is developed by reading
English, and the right cerebral hemisphere is developed by
reading Yiddish.
In a follow-up experiment Forgays (5) investigated
some developmental aspects of differential word recognition.
He reasoned that if the phenomenon depends upon the slow de
velopment of cell assemblies in the course of experience in
reading, it should be less pronounced with young children
than with adults. He used 6 male and 6 female subjects at
each grade level from the second to the tenth and in each of
the first three years of college. The subjects were shown


18
(3) Three 20-word lists were randomly selected from
the five-letter word list. One 10-word list of
three-letter words was randomly selected. One 10-
word list of seven-letter words was randomly se
lected.
(4) The word-order within each list was randomized,
(5) The right or left position of a given word in
Lists P, St U, W, and Y was chosen at random with
the exception of the last 2 words in each list
(which were placed to equate the number of words on
the right and left in each list),
(6) The right or left position of words in Lists Q,
T, V, Xp and Z was reversed from that of the same
words in Lists P, S, U* W, and Y, respectively.
(7) A practice list was constructed from the first
8 words of the military phonetic alphabet. Word-
order and word-position were randomly selected*
d. The projection screen was constructed of fiber-
board covered by two coats of flat white paint* Centered
in the exposed area was a |-inch black tack-head used as a
fixation point* The extent of screen exposed in binocular
vision measured 50 cm* high by 120 cm* wide; the monocular
extents (limited by the blinds) were 50 cm* high by 67 cm*
wi de*
Words projected on the screen were centered 10*6
cm* (3 visual angle) to the right or left of the center of
the fixation point* The mean height of tall letters was 2
cm* Mean horizontal extents of words were as follows:
three-letter words 5*1 cm** five-letter words 8*5 cm*;
seven-letter words 11*9 cm*


40
TABLE 4
MEAN NUMBER OF WORD'S RECOGNISED BY THE NON-SAMPLE AND
TOTAL GROUPS BY WORD-LENGTH AND WORD-POSITION
Word-
length
(letters)
Word-
posi
tion
Subject Group
Non-sample
Total
No. of
Words
t
No. of
Words
t
Five ,
Right
4.28
5.18***
4.59
8.19***
left eye
Left
2.18
2.65
Five,
Right
4.77
3.58***
4.71
6.82***
right eye
Left
2.85
3.05
Five,
Right
6.26
5.27***
6.87
10.85***
both eyes
Left
4.33
4.49
Three
Right
2.41
2.27*
2.49
1.85
Left
1.85
2.20
Seven
Right
2.92
569***
3.32
9.49***
Left
1.41
1.73
N, Non-sample: 39
N, Total: 120


27
TABLE 3
MEAN NUMBER OF WORDS RECOGNIZED BY THE SAMPLE GROUP IN
EXPERIMENT 2 BY WORD-LENGTH AND WORD-POSITION
Word-length
Word-
position
Mean No,
of Words
Recognized
S.D.
t
Three
Right
2.53
1.56
0.76
Left
2.37
1.22
Seven
Right
3.51
1.42
7.56*45- *
Left
1.89
1.42
N: 81
3* Addenda
Practice effects. It was desired to investigate
praotice effects. This was possible for the five-letter
words of Experiment 1 (eye-used and word-position condi
tions were counterbalanced). In an analysis of variance
of raw scores for the sample group, word-position was clas
sified against the series-position of the three twenty-word
lists (that is, the first, second, or third list shown to
each subject; see Appendix IV), Table 5, Appendix I, indi
cates that there were no significant practice effects
either in total number of words recognized or in differen
tial word recognition. Table 6, Appendix I, shows the mean
number of words recognized by the sample group for the


23
not sure, guess* Any questions? Now, center the fixa
tion point and I will show you the first word. Ready,
fix.
c. The experimenter then presented the practice list
at a shutter speed of 10 milliseconds and reoorded the sub
jects responses. If the subject reported four or more
words correctly, this speed was accepted as hie shutter
speed for the rest of the experiment. If he did not report
as many as four words (50 per cent of the practice list)
correctly, the list was repeated at a shutter speed of 30
milliseconds. If four or more words were correctly re
ported, this speed was accepted; if not, the list was re
peated at 40 milliseconds exposure, and, if necessary, at
100 milliseconds exposure. Even if the subject failed to
reach the criterion of four words correct at 100 millisec
onds exposure, this was the speed accepted since slower
speeds allow gross eye movements. After the shutter speed
had been determined, the subject was asked for additional
questions and was reminded about fixation and retinal ri
valry.
d. Three 30-word lists of five-letter words were then
presented with a one-minute break between lists. The ex
perimenter watched the subjects eyes through the blinder
tunnel for gross eye movements. Columns 1, 2, and 3 of
Appendix IV Indicate the manner in which counterbalancing


LIST OF REFERENCES
1. Anderson, I* and Crosland, H. R. The effects of eye-
dominance on 'Range of Attention' scores. Univ.
Oregon Publ.. 1933, .4, #4.
2. The effects of handedness on 'Range of At
tention' scores* Univ. Oregon Publ.. 1934, 4, #5.
3. The effects of combinations of handedness
and eyedness on letter-position, 'Range of Atten
tion' scores. Univ. Oregon Publ.. 1934, 4., #7.
4. Crider, B. A battery of tests for the dominant eye.
J. General Psychol.. 1944, 31, 179-190.
5. Forgays, D. G. The development of differential word
recognition. J. Exp. Psychol,. 1953, 45, 165-168.
6. Hebb, D. 0. The organization of behavior. New York:
Wiley, 1949.
7. Huey, E. B. The psychology and pedagogy of reading.
New York: Macmillan, 1908.
8. Keystone Vision Training Series: Part II, Visual
Skills and Supplementary Tests. Meadville, Penn.:
Keystone View Company, 1948.
9. Koffka, K. Principles of Gestalt psychology. New
York: Harcourt, Brace, 1935.
10. LaGrone, C. W., Jr. and Holland, B, F. Accuracy of
perception in peripheral vision in relation to
dextrality, intelligence, and reading ability.
Amer. J. Psychol.. 1943, 56. 592-598.
11. Lashley, K. S. The problem of cerebral organization
in vision. Biological Symposia. 1942, 7, 301-322.
12. Mishkin, M. and Forgays, D. G. Word recognition as a
function of retinal locus. J. Exp. Psychol..
1952, 4£, 43-48.
35


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRO DUCT ION . . 1
PROBLEM 12
SUBJECTS 15
MATERIALS AND APPARATUS . . 16
PROCEIXJRE 20
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS . . 24
DISCUSSION . . 30
SUMMARY . . 33
LIST OF REFERENCES 35
AFPENDIX I 38
AFPENDIX II ........ 56
AFPENDIX III 58
APPENDIX IV 60
APPENDIX V ....... 63
ill


21
11-2 to 2-11) meeting the selection criteria; (X) all sub
jects failing to meet the selection criteria. Subjects in
the four categories followed parallel procedures in the
remainder of the experiment; that is, the first subject in
each category received the same treatment as the first
subject in each of the other categories, the second sub
jects received the same treatment, and so on for the re
maining subjects.
4. The procedure for Experiment 1 was as follows:
a. The subject was seated comfortably and the head
rest was adjusted.
b. The experimenter pointed out the fixation point
and gave the following instructions:
This is the fixation point. From now on whenever I
say "Ready, fix", look at the fixation point and do
not look away until after a word appears. The words
will be either right or left of the fixation point,
but you are not to look where the word is. Always
look at the fixation point whenever 1 say "Ready,
fix". Do you have any questions so far?
Now, there are two things I want to point out: one is
that the fixation point must be centered in the screen
as you look at it; the other is that you may occasion
ally find yourself paying attention to the black blind
when one eye is covered. If at any time you notice
that you do not have the fixation point centered or
that you are seeing the black blind with the covered
eye, let me know right away and we will wait until you
are ready again. Any questions now?
Next, we will go through a practice list to find a
shutter speed that will be right for you. $hen a word
appears on the screen, tell me what it was; if you are


17
hinged blinds at either end of the tunnel allowed use o
either or both eyes,
b. A Keystone Overhead Taohistoscope was placed below
and in front of the head-rest in such a position that the
projected image of Pica type averaged 2 cm, in height (for
tall letters). A cut-out mask reduced the size of the
rectangular area of light projected on the screen to 11 cm,
high by 57,5 cm. wide. Exposure times of 10, 20, 40, and
100 milliseconds were available,
c. A wooden reel was mounted on either side of the
taohistoscope, and a strip of acetate was cut to fit the
reels. Eleven lists of words were typed in Pice type on
*Radio-Matrt slides and taped to the plastic strip. Cali
bration marks were matched on the tachistoscope and on the
continuous plastic strip to allow presentation of words in
uniform positions.
The word lists totalled 168 words, of which 80
were duplicates (See Appendix III). The procedure by
which these words were selected involved 7 steps as fol
lows:
(1) Three-, five-, and seven-letter words having a
frequency of 900-1900 per 4,500,000 in the Lorge
Magazine Count (15) were listed.
(2) Proper names, contractions, and numbers were
eliminated from the lists.


43
TABLE 7 Continued
Item
N
d.f .
Result
2. Eye-dominance, Crider's test
120
12/107
F- 1.06
3. (A.C.E. test)
a. Scores available vs, none
120
t 0.85
b. Quantitative score
87
rs -.13
c. Linguistic score
87
r- -.15
d. Total score
87
r* -.17
4, (Beading test)
a. Scores available vs. none
120
t- 0.75
b. Reading rate
67
r -.02
c. Story comprehension score
67
rs -.17
d. Vocabulary soore
67
r- -.22
e. Total comprehension score
67
r= -.14
f. Total score
67
r* -.21
5, (Miscellaneous)
a. Handedness
120
t 1.06
b. Age
120
10/109
Fa 1.45
c. Education (college year)
120
4/115
Fa 1.46
d. Sex
120
ta 2.42
e. Exposure time
120
3/116
Fa 1.66
f. S's wearing glasses vs.
those not
120
ta 0.58
g. Sample vs. non-sample S's
120
ta 0,29
h. S's meeting the iirst 3
selection criteria vs.
those not
120
ta 0.16


32
Since the factor of word-beginnings offers a pos
sible explanation of differential word recognition that is
not dependent upon retinal locus as such, it is not neces
sary to reject the doctrine of equipotentiality on the ba
sis of previous studies in this area.
Differential word recognition was not found sig
nificant for three-letter words. No great importance is
attached to this result since Forgays (5) did find signif
icant differential word recognition for this word-length
and since the right-left differences, although not signif
icant, were in the expected direction. (In other words,
no claim is made that differential word recognition does
not occur for three-letter words.)
Women were found to show lesa differential word
recognition than men. However, this difference is not
granted great importance for two reasons: (1) the number
of women, 28, was relatively small, and (2) women showed
the same general pattern of differential word recognition
as men.
Further study in this area should include a func
tional investigation of the effects of word-beginnings.
A second question is the possibility of an interaction
between experience and word-beginnings. Finally, a pos
sible sex difference in differential word recognition
might be considered.


51
TABLE 10 Continued


13
eye-dominance end of the eye used (right, left, or both to
gether). Poffenberger (14) reported that the nasal retinas
exhibit faster reaction time to a light than the temporal
retinas; if this finding could be generalized to word rec
ognition, it would indicate better recognition on the left
by the left eye and on the right by the right eye. It was
decided to investigate the effects of the eye used, check
ing for possible effects of eye-dorainonce. The hypothesis
of Experiment 1 is as follows: In a differential word rec
ognition situation the left eye will recognize words better
on the left and the right eye will recognize words better
on the right.
Huey's (7) arguments concerning the effects of
word-beginnings suggest that longer words will tend to show
greater differential word recognition* The advantage in
word-beginnings for longer words over shorter words to the
right of a fixation point may be illustrated with the fol
lowing diagram:
(Fixation
point)
already already
cut cut
C
D


26
TABLE 2
VARIANCE TABLE: WORD RECOGNITION SCORES FOR WORD-LENGTH
BY WORD-POSITION FOR THE SAMPLE GROUP, EXPERIMENT 2
Source
Sums of
d.f .
Mean
F
Square s
Square
Rows: Word-length
Columns: Word-
4.938
1
4.938
3.47
position
64.000
1
64.000
30. 30#****
Blocks: Subjects
273.222
80
3.440
Interaction: RxC
42.975
1
42.975
30.16***
Interaction: RxB
87.062
80
1.088
b
Interaction: BxC
169.000
80
2.112
1.48*
Interaction: RxBxC
114.025
80
1.425
Total
757.222
383
N: 81
^Throughout this paper a clash ( ) will be used
to indicate an F smaller than l.OO*
significant; that is, for the sample group differential
word recognition varied significantly with word-length
Table 3, below, indicates that the above-mentioned
interaction is in the expected direction; that is, the
(R-L) difference is greater in the case of seven-letter
words.
Conclusion. Since significantly greater differ
ential word recognition was found for seven-letter words
than for three-letter words, the hypothesis is not re
jected.


8
exposed groups of letters. They used 120 subjects balanced
in handedness, eye-dominance, and sex. The stimuli con
sisted of cards printed with 9 letters in random order.
One-third of the cards were printed so that the fixation
point (in a modified Dodge tachistoscope) would fall over
the fifth or center letter; these cards were designated
center-prints'. Another third of the cards were printed
so that the fixation point fell over the first or left-most
letter; these were called right-prints. The remainder,
called 'left-prints', were printed so that the fixation
point fell over the ninth or right-most letter. They found
(1) that right-eyed subjects excelled in the left visual
field and left-eyed subjects excelled in the right field,
(2) that left-handed subjects were superior in the right
visual field and right-handed subjects were superior in the
left field, (3) that the effects of handedness were in the
same direction as those of eye-dominance but were not as
great, and (4) that all subjects were handicapped under the
condition of left-print but left-eyed subjects were the
most distressed.
Huey (7) reported in an early study that *if a con
text is unknown, the items grasped will lie to the right of
the fixation point and that if it ie known, perception will
apply largely to the left of the fixation point,* He found


54
TABLE 10 Continued
X12
Right
2
4
4
5
3
Left
1
2
2
5
1
XI3
Right
1
3
1
6
0
Left
2
1
2
6
0
X14
Right
2
6
2
6
2
Left
2
1
3
3
1
XI5
Right
3
0
3
9
2
Left
1
2
1
2
0
X16
Right
2
2
6
9
1
Left
4
4
6
6
4
X17
Right
3
6
9
7
3
Left
2
3
2
8
3
XI8
Right
2
7
3
3
3
Left
5
1
6
3
2
X19
Right
5
4
3
6
4
Left
3
1
3
6
4
X20
Right
5
7
1
8
4
Left
1
2
2
5
0
X21
Right
3
1
7
5
3
Left
1
4
0
5
3
X22
Right
1
1
6
8
5
Left
2
5
7
6
4
X23
Right
5
3
6
6
5
Left
1
1
1
2
1
X24
Right
3
1
1
9
1
Left
0
0
1
5
1
X25
Right
3
8
6
7
3
Left
3
2
3
6
4


6
recognition by the slower subjects. Two months later the
subjects were recalled and shown five-letter words centered
3 from the fixation point under similar conditions* Eng
lish words were recognized significantly better on the
right, and Jewish word3 were recognized slightly better on
the right* Orbach then divided his subjects into 2 groups:
20 subjects who had learned English before Jewish and 12
subjects who had learned Jewish earlier than, or at the
same time as, English. The "Jewish-f irstn group recognized
Jewish words significantly better on the left, and the
"English-first" group recognized Jewish words significantly
better on the right. He reasoned that the earlier training
was the more important and concluded that the differential
training hypothesis was supported.
2. Views Opposed to that of Hebb
Each of the above authors makes specific oritical
reference to the theories of one or more of the following;
K. S. Lashley, K. Koffka, and W* Kdhler. The specific
point of controversy is the doctrine of equipotentiality
One view attacked is that of Lashley (11) to the effect
that . the explanation of perceptual generalization
is to be sought in the primitive organization of the nerv
ous tissue, rather than in any elaborate construction of
transcortical associative connections or of higher


3
th6 visual field, an anisotropy of visual space, and domi
nance of the left occipital cortex. These factors were at
tacked indirectly as follows; 19 subjects, aged 12 to 24,
who knew both English and Yiddish were shown English and
Yiddish words in the manner of the first series of Experi
ment I. English words were recognized significantly better
on the right; Yiddish words (Yiddish print reads from right
to left) were recognized slightly but not significantly
better on the left. The authors reasoned that if any of
the above unidirectional factors had been important, all of
the words would have been recognized more easily on the
right; they concluded that such factors were not important
in this situation.
In Experiment III an attempt was made to determine
the relative importance of the first and last letters of
words in word recognition. Using eight-letter English
words, Mishkin and Forgays blurred either the first four or
the last four letters by pencilling over them. They found
no significant difference in recognition between words with
blurred beginnings and words with blurred endings.
Experiment IV was conducted in order to determine
the retinal loci in which differential word recognition
might be observed, English words were presented at various
distances to the right or left of a fixation point. At two


APPENDIX V. SAMPLE BECORD FORMS
NAME: STUDENT NUMBER:
AGE: SEX: COLLEGE CLASSIFICATION:
WRITING HAND: A.C.E. C-31:
KEYSTONE TELEBINOCULAR
1. s.v.
Pase
Fail
2. V.I.
Pass
Fall
3* L.I.
1
2
3
4
5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13 14
15
4. F.
3
4-3
4
5. U.V.
1
2
3
4
5
6 7
8 9
10
6. U.V.
1
2
3
4
5
6 7
8 9
10
7. S.
1
2
3
4
5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12
10. L.I.
2
3
4
5
6
7 8
9 10
11. F.
3
4-3
4
12. U.V.
6
7
8
9
10 11
12
13 14
15 16 17
18
19
20
21
22
13. U.V.
6
7
8
9
10 11
12
13 14
15 16 17
18
19
20
21
22
CRIDER TEST
PRACTICE LIST
TEST
NAME R. L.
1.
Rina
1.
5.
2.
Card
3.
Box
2.
6.
4.
Cone
5.
Ophthoscone
3.
7.
6.
Spot
7.
Mirror
4.
8.
63


SUMMARY
1. The purpose of the present study was to investi
gate monocular vision and word-beginnings as possible fac
tors in differential word recognition. The first hypothe
sis was that the left eye would recognize words better on
the left and that the right eye would recognize words bet
ter on the right. The second hypothesis was that seven-
letter words would show greater differential word recogni
tion than three-letter words.
2. One hundred twenty University of Florida students
were shown lists of three-, five-, and seven-letter words
centered 3 to the right or left of a fixation point. Ex
posure times (not found related to differential word rec
ognition) ranged from 10 to 100 milliseconds between sub
jects. Recognition scores and other data were obtained.
A sample group of 81 subjects was selected from the total
group.
3. Words were recognized significantly better on the
right with either eye and with both eyes* Seven-letter
words showed significantly greater differential word rec
ognition than three-letter words. The first hypothesis
was rejected, but the second hypothesis was not rejected.
33


34
4* This study has shown that (1) differential word
recognition can occur in monocular vision and (2) the loca
tions of word-heginnings may affect superior recognition of
words to the right of a fixation point.


50
TABLE 10 -- Continued


DISCUSSION
The results of Experiment 1, taken by themselves,
support the Mishkin and Forgays (12) hypothesis of supe
rior efficiency of the left hemi-retinas in word recogni
tion. Recognition was significantly better when the left
hemi-retinas were the stimulated areas; this was true for
both monocular and binocular vision. The finding by
Poffenberger (14) of faster reaction time to a light by
the nasal rather than the temporal retinas does not seem
to generalize to word recognition. Furthermore, the eye-
and field-dominance relations reported by Anderson and
Crosland (3) and by LeGrone and Holland (10) for letters
and numerals do not appear to hold in word recognition.
It was noted that the eye-used condition affected
differential word recognition in the case of five-letter
words. However, most of the difference was between bi
nocular and monocular conditions rather than between the
right and left eye. Also, differential, word recognition
was slightly greater for the left eye than for the right
eye; the rationale for Experiment 1 would predict the
opposite result. Our first hypothesis must be rejected.
30


36
13. Orbach, J. Retinal locus as a factor in the recogni
tion of visually perceived words. Amer. J.
Psychol.. 1952, 65, 555-562.
14. Poffenberger, A. T., Jr. Reaction time to retinal
stimulation. Arch. Psychol.. 1912, #23.
15. Thorndike, I. L. and Lorge, I. The teacher's word
book of 30,000 words. New York: Columbia, 1944.


53
TABLE 10 Continued
L25
Right
3
2
3
5
1
Left
2
2
3
7
2
L26
Right
3
4
4
4
4
Left
0
1
0
0
0
L27
Right
2
6
5
5
5
Left
1
0
2
3
1
X 1
Right
2
0
8
7
3
Left
1
4
6
6
2
X 2
Right
3
3
6
5
3
Left
1
0
2
1
0
X 3
Right
2
4
4
4
3
Left
2
2
3
1
3
X 4
Right
2
3
5
10
2
Left
2
2
7
4
0
X 5
Right
3
9
9
10
4
Left
3
9
7
7
4
X 6
Right
2
5
4
7
3
Left
2
3
2
5
1
X 7
Right
2
4
6
5
4
Left
1
0
3
0
0
X 8
Right
1
3
2
2
0
Left
1
7.
V
0
3
1
X 9
Right
1
4
3
3
1
Left
1
1
0
1
0
X10
Right
2
7
7
6
4
Left
1
5
1
7
2
Xll
Right
4
3
4
6
2
Left
2
1
1
1
0


44
TABLE 8
RELATION OF VISUAL AND OTHER FACTORS TO
TOTAL SCORE (R-L, SAMPLE GROUP)
Itera
N
d.f .
Result
1* (Keystone Telebinocular)
a. Far-point muscular balance
81
7/73
Fs
b. Far-point fusion
81
1/79
Fs 1*70
c. Far-point usable vision,
right eye
81
7/73
Fs
d. Far-point acuity, right
eye
81
5/75
Fs
e. Difference, (d)-(c)
81
4/76
Fs
f. Far-point usable vision,
left eye
81
5/75
F 2.28
g. Far-point acuity, left eye
81
5/75
Fs
h. Difference, (g)-(f)
81
Z/ll
Fs 2,47
i. Difference, (f)-(c)
81
8/72
Fs 1.07
4* Difference, (g)-(d)
81
6/74
Fs
k. Far-point stereopsis
81
3/77
Fs
1. Near-point muscular
balance
81
8/72
Fs 1*55
ra. Near-point fusion
81
2/78
Fs
n. Near-point usable vision,
right eye
81
9/71
i
i
ii
fc
o* Near-point acuity, right
eye
81
8/72
Fs
p. Difference, (o)-(n)
81
6/74
Fs
q. Near-point usable vision,
left eye
81
8/72
it
f
i
r. Near-point acuity, left
eye
81
8/72
Fs
s. Difference, (r)-(q)
81
5/75
Fs 1.07
t. Difference, (q)-(n)
81
12/68
Fs
u. Difference, (r)-(o)
81
ioAo
Fs
2* Eye-dominance, Crider's test
81
12/68
1
i
fi
3* (A.C.E. test)
a. Scores available vs* none
81
ts 1.18
b Quantitative score
59
rs -.02
c. Linguistic score
59
rs -.06
d. Total score
59
rs -.13


APPENDIX IV. ORDER OF PRESENTATION
(Order of presentation of word lists for each subject.
Each list contained words both on the right and on the
left; see Appendix III. The first letter in each pair in
dicates the eye used, and the second letter indicates the
list used; for example, the first list shown to Subject
R 1 was List W, and for this list he used his left eye.)
Sub-
Presentation Order
Sub-
Presentation Order
ject
Ject
No.
1
2
3
4
5
No.
1
2
3
4
5
R 1
LW
RY
SU
LP
LT
R24
RZ
LV
BX
LS
LP
R 2
LX
BZ
RV
RP
RT
R25
BV
RX
LZ
BS
BP
R 3
RU
BW
LY
BP
BT
R26
RZ
LV
BX
LS
LP
R 4
RZ
LV
BX
LS
LP
R27
RU
BW
LY
BQ
BS
R 5
BY
LU
RW
RS
RP
I 1
LV?
RY
BU
BP
BT
R 6
BV
RX
LZ
BS
BP
I 2
LX
BZ
RV
RP
RT
R 7
LW
RY
BU
LQ
LS
I 3
RU
BW
LY
LP
LT
R 8
LX
BZ
RV
RQ
RS
I 4
RZ
LV
BX
LS
LP
R 9
RU
BW
LY
BQ
BS
I 5
BY
LU
RW
RS
RP
RIO
RZ
LV
BX
LT
LQ.
I 6
BV
RX
LZ
BS
BP
Rll
BY
LU
RW
RT
RQ
I 7
LW
RY
BU
LQ
LS
R12
BV
RX
LZ
BT
BQ
I 8
LX
BZ
RV
RQ
RS
R13
LW
RY
BU
LP
LT
I 9
RU
BW
LY
BQ
BS
R14
LX
BZ
RV
RP
RT
110
RZ
LV
BX
LT
LQ
R15
RU
BW
LY
BP
BT
Ill
LX
BZ
RV
RP
RT
R16
RZ
LV
BX
LS
LP
112
BV
RX
LZ
BT
BQ
R17
LX
BZ
RV
RQ
RS
113
LW
RY
BU
LP
LT
R18
RU
BW
LY
BQ
BS
114
RU
BW
LY
BP
BT
R19
RZ
LV
BX
LT
LQ
115
BY
LU
RW
RS
RP
R20
BY
LU
RW
RT
RQ
116
LW
RY
BU
LQ
LS
R21
BV
RX
LZ
BT
BQ
117
RU
BW
LY
BQ
BS
R22
LX
BZ
RV
RP
RT
118
RZ
LV
BX
LT
LQ
R23
LX
BZ
RV
RP
RT
119
BY
LU
RW
RT
RQ
60


64
STUDENT
NUMBER:
DATE:
TIME:
EYE:
EYE;
EYE:
EYE:
LIST:
LIST:
LIST:
LIST:
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
2.
3.
3.
3.
3.
4*
4.
4.
4.
5._
5.
5.
5.
6.
6.
6.
6.
7.
7.
7.
7.
8.
8.
8.
8.
9.
9.
9.
9.
10.
10.
10.
10.
11.
11.
11.
11.
12.
12.
12.
12.
13.
13.
13.
13.
14.
14.
14.
14.
15.
15.
15.
15.
16.
16.
16.
16.
17.
17.
17.
17.
18.
18.
18.
18.
19.
19.
19.
19.
20.
20.
20.
20.


5
common English three- end four-letter words at an exposure
time of 150 milliseconds. The words were centered either
l-?v inches to the right or l-i| inches to the left of the
fixation point of an apparatus similar to that used by
Mishkin and Forgays (12), Each word was presented 5 times
on the right and 5 times on the left in random order. Up to
about the sixth- or seventh-grade there was no significant
or consistent difference in favor of either side of the vis
ual field. Above this grade level the right half of the
visual field gained an increasing recognition advantage over
the left half. Analysis of variance yielded significant
figures for increase in total number of words recognized
with increasing grade level, for superiority of recognition
in the right visual field, and for interaction of superior
ity of recognition in the right visual field with increasing
grade level, Forgays concluded that his hypothesis was sup
ported,
Orbach (13) modified Experiment II of the Mishkin
and Forgays study (12), Thirty-two readers of English and
Jewish were shown eight-letter English and Jewish words at
a distance of 7 feet* The words were presented in random
order either 4 46* to the left or 4 46' to the right of a
fixation point* Exposure times (constant for each subject)
varied from 20 to 100 milliseconds between subjects to allow


46
TABLE 9
MEAN NUMBER OF WORDS RECOGNIZED BY SEX,
WORD-LENGTH, AND WORD-POSITION
Word-
length
(letters)
Word-
posi-
tion
Sex
Males
Females
No. of
Words
t
No. of
Word 8
t
Five,
Right
4.66
867***
4.36
1.67
left eye
Left
2.38
3.54
Five'
Right
4.71
8.78***
4.71
1.63
right eye
Left
2.79
3.89
Five,
Right
6.76
9.89***
7.21
4.63***
both eyes
Left
4.20
5.46
Three
Right
2.51
2.02*
2.43
0.20
Left
2.15
2.36
Seven
Right
3.17
7.73***
3.79
5.47***
Left
1.65
2.00
N, Males: 92
N, Females: 28


APPENDIX II. DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT GROUPS
Item
Subject Group
Sample
Non
sample
Total
N
81
39
120
1. Mean age
21,5
23.3
22.1
2. Age range
18-26
17-54
17-54
3. No, o malee
60
32
92
4, Mean college year
2.6
2.4
2.6
5. No, o left-handed S*a
10
1
11
6. No. of S's wearing glasses
22
9
31
7. Mean Crider eye-dominance
7.0
11.4-
8.4-
test score
6.0
1.6
4.6
8, (A.C.E, scores)
a. No. having scores
59
28
87
b. Mean quantitative score
45.1
42.3
44.2
c. Mean linguistic score
71.9
67.0
70.3
d. Mean total score
117.0
109.3
114.5
9. (Reading test scores)
a. No, having scores
46
21
67
b. Mean reading rate
307.3
323.5
312.4
c. Mean story compre
hension score
15.0
14,5
14.9
d. Mean vocabulary score
47.2
45.1
46.5
e. Mean total compre
hension score
31.2
29.5
30.7
f. Mean total score
78.4
74.7
77.2
56


14
The ratio /i/3 is larger than the ratio C/D; that is, the
beginnings of the longer words on the right fall relatively
closer to the center of the retina (in an area of more ef
ficient recognition)* If word-beginning3 are more impor
tant to recognition than word-endings, we would expect a
larger right-left difference in recognition scores for
longer words* It was decided to investigate this factor by
using three- and seven-letter words* The hypothesis of Ex
periment 2 is as follows: Seven-letter words will show
greater differential word recognition than three-letter
a
words.


APPENDIX III. SRD LISTS
(The word lists with the Lorge Magazine Count Frequency per
4#500|000 words for each word in the main lists.)
List
u
List
w
List
Y
List
S
Word
f
Word
f
Word
f
Word
f
cover
1323
reach
1457
along
1534
cut
943
black
1083
group
1032
taken
1474
age
1022
since
1425
cause
940
often
1527
red
1036
dress
1790
quite
1732
sense
1080
f ar
1835
green
1025
child
1574
train
1019
hot
1006
ago
1107
paint
1107
human
963
serve
1195
cup
1336
color
1541
force
1019
chair
1298
boy
1567
f ront
1094
carry
1500
least
1254
set
1636
sound
1305
alone
1305
stand
1707
big
1773
table
1325
dance
1167
happy
1449
(Mean)
1326
fight
1391
touch
1016
st ate
1564
today
1104
story
1651
known
1091
glass
1001
paper
1235
close
1862
early
1022
given
1054
reply
1249
power
911
stood
1891
point
1377
Practice
List
learn
1304
price
1026
among
1051
large
1697
small
1818
plant
944
watch
1722
study
942
floor
1001
george
laugh
1768
whole
1663
order
1477
able
tried
1557
built
1152
begin
1109
baker
(Mean)
1325
(Mean)
1307
(Mean)
1313
uog
Charlie
how
easy
fox
58


25
the sample group for five-letter words, indicates that word
recognition was significantly better on the right for the
left eye, for the right eye, and for both eyes together in
binocular vision.1
Conclusion. Since words were recognized signifi
cantly better on the right with either eye, the hypothesis
is rejected at the .001 level of confidence.
2. Experiment 2
Hypothesis. Seven-letter words will show greater
differential word recognition than three-letter words.
Results. An analysis of variance classifying
word-position (right or left) against word-length (three or
seven letters) was performed on the raw scores of the sam-
O
pie group. Table 2, below, indicates that word-position
differences were highly significant. The Interaction be
tween word-length and word-position (PxC) was also highly
1A preliminary analysis of variance (See Table 1,
Appendix I) showed no significant effects of eye-dominance
on differential word recognition (R-L) scores Accordingly,
results for the three dominance groups were combined.
p
Preliminary analyses of variance (See Tables 2
and 3, Appendix I) showed no significant effects of eye-
dominance or of the eye used upon differential word rec
ognition (R-L) scores. Accordingly, results for the three
dominance groups and for the three eye-used conditions
were combined.


INTRODUCTION
1. Differential Word Recognition
Efficiency in visual word recognition depends upon
many factors. The present study is related to the general
factor of retinal locus.
In The Organization of Behavior. Hebb (6) referred
to a study by Mishkin and Forgays, later reported more ful
ly by the authors (12). The essential finding was that
English words exposed briefly to the peripheral parts of
the retina were recognized more easily when falling on the
left hemi-retinas rather than on the right hemi-retinas.
The terra 'differential word recognition' was used to de
scribe the observed phenomenon.
Hebb accepted this result (as did Mishkin and
Forgays) 83 evidence for his general theory. In terras of
this theory differential word recognition is explained as
follows: (1) perception depends largely upon previous ex
perience; (2) English print reads from left to right, and,
in reading, the greater part of the peripheral recognition
activity is directed toward words to the right of a given
fixation point; (3) words to the right of a fixation point
are projected on the left herai-retinas; (4) thus, during
1


7
coordination centers.'* Koffka (9) holds a similar view.
Hebb holds that the findings with regard to differ
ential word recognition argue against unqualified accept
ance of the doctrine of equipotentiality, which would pre
dict no difference in recognition of the same words at
equal distances to the right or left of a fixation point.
He maintains that perceptual generalization is largely
learned rather than innate. The common finding of visual
equipotentiality is explained by Hebb's theory as the re
sult of relatively uniform stimulation of the parts of the
retina except in the special case of reeding.
3. Experimental Results in Similar Studies
Although there have been relatively few studies in
the specific area of differential word recognition, a num
ber of other studies have investigated differences in rec
ognition between the right and left halves of the visual
field. It should be pointed out, however, that Mishkin and
Forgays are emphatic in their restriction of the term dif
ferential word recognition' to word recognition at certain
peripheral angles.
Anderson and Crosland (1, 2, 3) carefully investi
gated such factors as retinal locus, eye-dominance, and
handedness in studies of the visual span for briefly


MONOCULAR VISION AND WORD-LENGTH AS FACTORS
IN DIFFERENTIAL WORD RECOGNITION
By
JOSEPH R. MELVILLE
A Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of
The University of Florida
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
JANUARY, 1957


45
TABLE 8 Continued
Item
N
d.f.
Result
4* (Reading test)
a. Scores available vs* none
81
t* 0.30
b* Reading rate
46
r* + *03
c. Story comprehension score
46
r -.15
d* Vocabulary score
46
r -.19
e* Total comprehension score
46
r* -.12
f* Total score
46
r -*18
5* (Miscellaneous)
a* Handedness
81
t* 0.84
b. Age
81
8/72
F* 1.54
c* Education (college year)
81
4/76
F
d. Sex
81
t* 2.83**
e* Exposure time
81
3/77
F 1.57
f. Ss wearing glosses vs.
those not
81
t 0.62


42
TABLE 7
RELATION OF VISUAL AND OTHER FACTORS TO
TOTAL SCORE (R-L, TOTAL GROUP)
Item
N
d.f .
Result*3
1* (Keystone Telebinocular)
a, Far-point muscular balance
120
10/109
Fs
b. Far-point fusion
120
2/117
Fz 1*13
c* Far-point usable vision,
right eye
120
8/111
t
i
it
fci
d. Far-point acuity, right
eye
120
7/112
Fz
e. Difference, (d)-(c)
120
4/115
Fr
f* Far-point usable vision,
left eye
120
9/110
Fs 1.44
g* Far-point acuity, left eye
h. Difference, (g)-(f)
120
8/111
Fs 1*37
120
5/114
Fs
i* Difference, (f)-(c)
120
11/108
Fs
j* Difference, (g)-(d)
120
11/108
F*
k. Far-point stereopsis
120
5/114
F u
1. Near-point muscular
balance
120
10/109
Fs 1*37
m* Near-point fusion
120
2/117
Fs
n* Near-point usable vision,
right eye
120
10/109
Fa
o. Near-point acuity, right
eye
120
8/111
F-
p* Difference, (o)-(n)
120
7/112
F
q. Near-point usable vision,
left eye
120
10/109
F
r* Near-point acuity, left
eye
120
10/109
Fa
s. Difference, (r)-(q)
120
5/114
Fa 2*16
t* Difference, (q)-(n)
120
12/107
Fa
u. Difference, (r)-(o)
120
11/108
Fa
^Various statistics were used for convenience*
The F-ratios are from simple analyses of variance per
formed on the total (R-L) scores* Subject groups were
set up on the basis of scores for the variables listed
under "Item**


47
TABLE 10
RAW DATA: NUMBER OF WORDS RECOGNIZED BY EACH
SUBJECT UNDER EACH CONDITION6
or 7 letters), the position of the words (right or left of
the fixation point), and the eye used (left, right, or both
together). Mximum scores under each combination of condi
tions: 10 for five-letter words and 5 for three- and seven-
letter words*


PROBLEM
Some of the studies cited above indicate that fac
tors other than differential training may play a part in
differential word recognition. We have listed several
such factors. The purpose of the present study is to test
hypotheses about two of them: monocular vision and word-
beginnings. Since data having a bearing on some of the
other possible factors will be obtained, such data will be
presented also.
The theoretical point at issue is the doctrine of
equipotentiality. If differential word recognition could
be shown to depend upon innate structural characteristics
of the eye or upon characteristics of the visual stimulus
object, the force of Hebb*s (6) argument against the doc
trine would be reduced. The doctrine would allow (1) dif
ferences in response by retinal areas of different acuity
and (2) differences in response to different stimulus pat
terns. The first hypothesis, below, is related to the
first of these differences; the second hypothesis is re
lated to both of then.
The studies of Anderson and Crosland (1, 8, 3) and
of LaGrone and Holland (10) suggest possible effects of
12


62
APPENDIX IV Continued
Sub
ject
No*
Presentation Order
Sub
ject
No.
Presentation Order
1
2
3
4
5
1
8
3
4
5
X30
HO
BW
LY
BQ
BS
X35
RV
LX
BZ
bq
BS
X31
HU
BW
LY
BP
BT
X36
LW
RY
BO
LP
LT
X32
LW
RY
BO
LP
LT
X37
RZ
LV
BX
RS
RP
X33
LV
BX
RZ
RS
RP
X38
LX
BZ
RV
BQ
BS
X34
RX
BZ
LV
LT
LQ
X39
LU
BW
RY
LS
LP


57
APPENDIX II Continued
Item
Subject Group
Sample
Non
sample
Total
10. (Keystone Visual Skills
Tests scores)
a. No. of failures in
simultaneous vision
0
0
0
b. No. of failures in
vertical muscular
balance
0
0
0
c. Mean far-point lateral
muscular balance score
9.1
9.0
9.1
d. No. of failures in
far-point fusion
0
1
1
e. Mean far-point acuity
score, right eye
9.1
in
.
GO
8.9
f. Mean far-point acuity
score, left eye
9.1
03

0)
00

CO
g. No. of failures in
far-point stereopsis
0
3
3
h. Mean near-point
lateral muscular
balance score
5,0
4.9
4*9
i. No. of failures in
near-point fusion
15
5
20
j. Mean near-point acuity
score, right eye
18.2
17.9
18.1
k. Mean near-point acuity
score* left eye
17.7
17.2
17.6


10
Poffenb6rger (14) studied reaction times to a light
presented to various portions of the retina. He found that
reaction time was consistently foster when the light fell
on either nasal retina rather than on either temporal ret
ina. He concluded that the nasal retinas are more effi
cient in recognition than the temporal retinas.
4. Possible Factors in Differential Word Recognition
Borne of the experimental results given in the pre
ceding section suggest that factors other than differential
training of the left hemi-retinos may play a part in dif
ferential word recognition.
An immediately evident suggestion comes from the
work of Huey (7). With words on the right of a fixation
point the important first letters are closer to the fixa
tion point (and fall closer to the more efficient central
parts of the retina) than with words on the left. It will
be remembered that Mishkin and Forgays (12) found no dif
ferences in recognition when the firBt half or the last
half of a word was blurred, but Huey found a large differ
ence when the first or last half was deleted. The relative
importance of word-beginnings might be a factor in differ
ential word recognition.
The results of Anderson and Crosland (lt 2, 3) and


28
first, second, and third lists shown (to a given subject)
in Experiment 1.
Other factors. Certain scores additional to those
needed to test the two hypotheses were available. It was
desired to determine whether any of them might be related
to differential word recognition.
A "Total Score" (R-L, a differential word recogni
tion score) was derived for all words recognized by each
subject. Table 7, Appendix I, indicates that no signifi
cant relation was found between total scores for the total
group3 and each of the following: (1) scores from the
Keystone Visual Skills Teats; (2) eye-dominance scores;
(3) A.C.E. scores; (4) reading test scores; (5) individual
differences in handedness, age, and education; (6) uncon
trolled experimental variables such as exposure time and
the use of glasses.* As a check the same operations were
performed on the data for the sample group only;5 the re
sults were similar (See Table 8, Appendix I).
^Table 4, Appendix I, (in conjunction with Tables
1 and 3, above) indicates that the non-sample group per
formed in essentially the same manner with respect to dif
ferential word recognition as the sample group; these
groups combined form the total group.
*Raw data may be obtained from the writer.
^he selection procedure restricted the distri
butions of some of these scores for the sample group.


9
that good readers attend more often to the area to the left
of a fixation point and that poor readers attend more often
to the area to the right of a fixation point in reading.
In the case of tachistoscopic recognition of lines of print
the tendency was toward better recognition of words to the
right of the fixation point; Huey attributed this finding
to the greater significance of word-beginnings for words on
the right, pointing out that the first letter in a word is
extremely important. In one experiment he found that words
with their first halves deleted were read at the rate of
0.33 word per second and that words with their last halves
deleted were read at the rate of 0.49 word per second; how
ever, he gives no data regarding the significance of this
diff erence.
LaGrone and Holland (10) reported results of their
studies of a group of second-grade school children. They
found that right-eyedness was related positively to right-
handedness, intelligence, reading ability, inferiority of
perceptual accuracy in the right visual field, and superi
ority in the left visual field. Similar results were found
for right-handed children. Heading ability was found to be
negatively related to superiority in the right visual
field; superior readers were more accurate in the left
field.


49
TABLE 10 Continued


66
This dissertation was prepared under the direction
of the chairman of the candidates supervisory committee
and has been approved by all members of that committee*
It was submitted to the Dean of the College of Arts and
Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and was approved as
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.
January 26, 1957
Dean, College of Arts and
Sciences
Dean, Graduate School
SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE


MATERIALS AND APPARATUS
1,Keystone Visual Skills Tests
2 Crider Eye-dominance Test
3, Word-recognition Apparatus
4* Mimeographed Record Forms
5. Room with Controlled Lighting
1. A Keystone Ophthalmic Telebinocular with Keystone
Visual Skills Tests I-VII and X-XIII (8) provided measures
of visual ability,
2. Crider1s (4) eye-dominance test provided measures
of sighting dominance.
3. The word-recognition apparatus included four major
components ae follows:
a. A stable, adjustable head-rest and blinder combi
nation was arranged so that each subject would have ap
proximately the same visual field. Height adjustments
could be accomplished by raising or lowering either the
head-rest or the subjects chair, but lateral movements
were not allowed. The rest placed the subjects eyes two
meters from the projector screen.
The blinder tunnel measured 32 cm. in length,
18 cm. in width, and 9.5 cm. in height. All surfaoes ex
posed to the subject were painted flat black. A pair of
16