{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.05064021225054793, 'fraction_numerical': 0.030684046602837696, 'mean_word_length': 4.78, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 3, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, '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}}
Visual word recognition: Evidence for a serial bottleneck in lexical access

Reading is a demanding task, constrained by inherent processing capacity limits. Do those capacity limits allow for multiple words to be recognized in parallel? In a recent study, we measured semantic categorization accuracy for nouns presented in pairs. The words were replaced by post-masks after an interval that was set to each subject’s threshold, such that with focused attention they could categorize one word with ~80% accuracy. When subjects tried to divide attention between both words, their accuracy was so impaired that it supported a serial processing model: on each trial, subjects could categorize one word but had to guess about the other. In the experiments reported here, we investigated how our previous result generalizes across two tasks that require lexical access but vary in the depth of semantic processing (semantic categorization and lexical decision), and across different masking stimuli, word lengths, lexical frequencies and visual field positions. In all cases, the serial processing model was supported by two effects: (1) a sufficiently large accuracy deficit with divided compared to focused attention; and (2) a trial-by-trial stimulus processing tradeoff, meaning that the response to one word was more likely to be correct if the response to the other was incorrect. However, when the task was to detect colored letters, neither of those effects occurred, even though the post-masks limited accuracy in the same way. Altogether, the results are consistent with the hypothesis that visual processing of words is parallel but lexical access is serial. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.3758/s13414-019-01916-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.


Supplementary Material for White, Palmer & Boynton (2019): Visual word recognition: evidence for a serial bottleneck in lexical access
Individual subject Attention Operating Characteristics Figure S1: Attention Operating Characteristics for individual subjects in Experiment 1 (semantic categorization), collapsing over both mask types. Format as in Figure 2; closed symbols are single-task accuracy levels and open symbols are dual-task accuracy levels. Figure S2: Attention Operating Characteristics for individual subjects in Experiment 2 (lexical decision). Format as in Figure S1.  Figure S3: Attention Operating Characteristics for individual subjects in Experiment 3 (color detection). Format as in Figure S1.

Dual-task accuracy correlations
In the main text, we demonstrate the stimulus processing tradeoff by analyzing accuracy conditional on the accuracy of the response to the other side on dual-task trials. Here we present a related analysis: the correlation between the accuracies of responses to the two sides (Bonnel & Prinzmetal, 1998;Ernst, Palmer, & Boynton, 2012;Lee, Koch, & Braun, 1999;Sperling & Melchner, 1978). The stimulus processing tradeoffs we observed in Experiments 1 and 2 (higher accuracy when the other side's response was incorrect) would predict a negative accuracy correlation.
Altogether, the correlations are consistent with the stimulus processing tradeoff patterns reported in the main text, although noisier. As we have argued previously (White, Palmer, & Boynton, 2018), the correlations could be contaminated by effects of the other side's response on decision criterion. In contrast, the conditional analysis of stimulus trade-offs ( Figure 3) computes area under the ROC curve as a bias-free measure of accuracy.

Length and frequency effects on accuracy
We first analyzed accuracy in each experiment as a function of the number of letters in the string being judged, as shown in the top row of Figure S4. For these analyses, we use the sensitivity measure d' rather than Ag, because we need to evaluate the interactions between word length and cue condition (single-task vs. dual-task). Ag is a proportion and therefore not ideal for analyzing interactions when there are also main effects (Loftus, 1978). In contrast, d' can be assumed to scale linearly with the signal-tonoise ratio of the stimulus representations.
In general, skilled readers show little effect of word length on recognition performance (Nazir, 2007), but decrements for longer words have been reported when the stimuli are not fixated directly (Bub & Lewine, 1988;Ellis, 2004). The negative effect of increasing length on accuracy in the lexical decision task (Expt. 2) is therefore not entirely surprising. The positive effect in the semantic categorization task (Expt. 1) is more difficult to explain. Perhaps the subjective discriminability of the 'living' and 'nonliving' categories increases as word length increases. Figure S4) was affected by length in a similar manner as single-task d' in each experiment. But is the relative dual-task deficit smaller for shorter words? That would predict a particular two-way interaction between cue condition (single-task vs. dual-task) and length. To the contrary: In Experiment 1, there was no significant interaction (F(2,18)=0.47, p=0.63), although there were significant main effects of length (F(2,18)=14.3, p=0.0002) and cue (F(1,9)=573, p<10 -7 ). The dual-task deficit on d' was equivalent for short and long words (mean difference in deficits = 0.07 ± 0.09, t(9)=0.71, p=0.49, [-0.11, 0.23]).
That runs counter to the prediction that short words are easier to process in parallel.
In Experiment 3 (color detection), single-task d' increased from 3-letter to 5-letter strings, by an average of 0.40 ± 0.12 (t(9)=3.30, p=0.009, CI = [0.22 0.69]). The longer the targets, the more colored letters were present, increasing the probability of detection. There was no significant interaction between length and cue condition (F<1). The dual-task deficit was slightly but not significantly smaller for the shortest than and longest words (mean difference = 0.15 ± 0.14, t(9)=1.08, p=0.31, CI = [-0.03 0.57]). We next analyzed d' as a function of lexical frequency (measured as occurrences/million), by sorting each stimulus set into three equally sized bins. In Experiment 1, the frequency bins were: low (0.06 -3.4 per million); medium (3.4 -14.5), and high (14.5 -539). For the stimulus set used in Experiments 2 and 3, the bins were:

Experiment 3 Color detection
Single-task Dual-task low (3.4 -12.2); medium (12.2 -50.1); and high (50.1 -872). Note that in Experiment 2 (lexical decision) it was not possible to directly compute d' in each frequency bin. All pseudowords have 0 lexical frequency, so we cannot analyze the rate of false alarms (incorrectly reporting that a pseudoword was a real word) in each bin. We therefore first compute the false alarm rates from pseudoword trials and assume they are constant across frequency bins. See below for an analysis of hit rates separately, which show a very similar pattern.
As shown in the bottom row of Figure S4, single-task d' in Experiments 1 and 2 increased with lexical frequency (both F(2,18)>14, p<0.001). More common words are easier to recognize, even with focused attention. The mean difference in d' between the high and low bins was 0.54 ± 0.12 in Experiment 1 (t (9) The key question is whether the dual-task deficit is smaller for high-frequency words.
In fact, the dual-task deficit was larger for words in the high-frequency bin than in the low frequency bin, by an average of 0.43 ± 0.13 in Experiment 1 (t (9) Therefore, it does not seem that pairs of common words can be processed in parallel.

Hit rates as a function of lexical frequency in Experiment 2
In the above analysis of lexical frequency effects on d' in Experiment 2, we had to assume that the false alarm rates (incorrectly reporting pseudowords to be real words) were constant across frequency bin. As a complementary analysis that doesn't rely on that assumption, we analyzed hit rates (correctly reporting real words) as a function of the lexical frequency bin, in the single-task and dual-task conditions separately.
The question is whether the dual-task deficit on hit rates becomes less severe as lexical frequency increases. As shown in Figure S5, the opposite occurred. Hit rates rose as a function of frequency in the single-task condition faster than in the dual-task deficit. As a result, the average dual task-deficit increased significantly from the low frequency bin (0.25 ± 0.03) to the high bin (0.31 ± 0.02; comparison across bins: t(9)=2.86, p=0.019, CI = [0.03, 0.11]). Therefore, lexical decision for two words in parallel does not become easier as their lexical frequency increases. Single-task Dual-task