{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013262599469496022, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010610079575596816, 'mean_word_length': 4.895833333333333, '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}}
Spatial attention as a necessary preliminary to early processes in reading.

One major theory of the relation between spatial attention and visual word recognition holds that the former is a necessary condition for the latter to begin. A different major theory asserts that although spatial attention can facilitate the latter, it is not a necessary condition. These two theories were pitted against each other experimentally. Spatial attention was operationalized in terms of the effect of a spatial precue on the time to name a target word that appeared above or below fixation. A masked prime word was presented before the target. The critical difference between experiments was cue validity (50% in Experiments 1a and 2a and 100% in Experiments 1b and 2b). Repetition priming was observed when the prime appeared in the uncued prime location in Experiments la and 2a but not in Experiments 1b or 2b. These results are inconsistent with the claim that visual word recognition does not depend on spatial attention. Discussion centres on the distribution of spatial attention across target locations as a function of cue validity.