{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014104372355430184, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.893203883495145, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Does Post-Exposural Directional Scanning Offer a Sufficient Explanation for Lateral Differences in Tachistoscopic Recognition?

White's recent criticisms of experiments by McKeever and Huling are discussed. The points are made that, contrary to White's claim, McKeever and Huling never attributed all obtainable lateral recognition differences to effects of cerebral dominance and that White's criticisms in no way establish a directional scanning hypothesis as compatible with the results obtained under the conditions of the McKeever and Huling experiments. That the scanning hypothesis also fails to account for many other results obtained in recognition and recognition reaction time studies is indicated.