Slashdot Mirror
The Science of Word Recognition
neile writes "I stumbled across a fascinating paper over at the Microsoft Typography site today that provides a really nice overview of the different theories on how humans read. If you thought we read by recognizing word shapes, think again! With the assistance of fancy eye-tracking cameras researchers have been able to devise several clever experiments to give us new insight into how reading works." We've linked to some of Larson's work previously.
While reading the article, I suddenly become hyper-aware about how I was reading the article. :-)
Don't let the Microsoft name scare you off - the article makes for a fascinating look (pun intended) into how we read. I wonder, though, if these findings are duplicated with written Oriental languages.
You call this a signature?
They probably have already written papers on it ..... in their own languages.
..... different reading techniques require different resolutions, the eye is great at recognising outlines but needs to zero-in on details, once a clue is established from the word envelope. There is evidence that fonts such as Times are more readable than Helvetica, so maybe serifs add recognisability in their own way? And if this is what is happening, then it would explain some of the test results in the article too, since they were looking for a single technique in use at any one time.
..... for instance, we have kidneys that pack up if you drink nothing but de-mineralised water, and an immune system that goes berserk and tries to poison you with histamine if it doesn't get enough germs to fight off.
Want my theory? I think the brain uses multiple techniques in parallel, then releases resources from the ones found to be going nowhere. So at any one time you may be trying to read a word letter-by-letter, recognising the word from the Bouma shape, and picking likely words from context. The different techniques will have different successes depending on various factors (clean type vs. messy handwriting, familiar vs unfamiliar words, &c). So my theory is that the brain is trying various methods at the same time, each narrowing down the possibilities, and just goes with whatever produces a result first. As soon as that happens, any half-finished tests in progress are scrapped and their resources deallocated. The eye movements may well have something to do with this
If all this sounds inefficient, you have to remember that human beings are optimised for non-optimum conditions
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg - the phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid. Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer inwaht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
---
Don't give any ideas to spammers on how to sneak their "pneis elnraegemnt ceram" past the filters. I do suspect that the effect is local to the small group of letters and long words that are totally randomized will be difficult to read.