The influence of literacy on visual search

Abstract

Currently one in five adults is still unable to read despite a rapidly developing world. Here we show that (il)literacy has important consequences for the cognitive ability of selecting relevant information from a visual display of nonlinguistic material. In two experiments we compared low to high literacy observers on both an easy and a more difficult visual search task involving different types of chicken. Low literates were consistently slower (as indicated by overall response times) in both experiments. More detailed analyses, including eye movement measures, suggest that the slowing is partly due to display wide (i.e., parallel) sensory processing but mainly due to postselection processes, as low literates needed more time between fixating the target and generating a manual response. Furthermore, high and low literacy groups differed in the way search performance was distributed across the visual field. High literates performed relatively better when the target was presented in central regions, especially on the right. At the same time, high literacy was also associated with a more general bias towards the top and the left, especially in the more difficult search. We conclude that learning to read results in an extension of the functional visual field from the fovea to parafoveal areas, combined with some asymmetry in scan pattern influenced by the reading direction, both of which also influence other (e.g., nonlinguistic) tasks such as visual search.

Keywords:

• Literacy
• Visual search
• Attention

This work was supported by an NWO Open Competition grant 404-10-321 awarded to CNLO and FH and a Cognitive Science Initiative grant from the Department of Science and Technology, India, awarded to RKM.

This work was supported by an NWO Open Competition grant 404-10-321 awarded to CNLO and FH and a Cognitive Science Initiative grant from the Department of Science and Technology, India, awarded to RKM.

Notes

¹ We report F-tests rather than t-tests because set size was typically also included as a factor in these analyses. We only report on set size effects when they deviate from what has already been reported in the main analysis.