The results of the study according to the experiment methodology are the following. In the Experiment 1, inverse relationship between the relative word-frequency and duration threshold is noted.
The words with high frequency of occurrence needs decrease time of exposure. Therefore, increasing the repetition of exposure decreases the time needed of exposure for the subject to identify the correct word. However, increasing the time of exposure decreases the required repetition for the subject to identify the word. In the experiment II, no significant error in experiment I is identified.The correlations of Experiment I higher as a whole than those for Experiment II however, there are still significance present between the results of Experiment I and II but it is small to be considered as significant. 44.
5% of average covariance of visual duration threshold is obtained from Experiment II while 50. 9% is obtained from the latter experiment. Such results show very little difference as well (p. 406). Discussion The methodology of Experiment I have introduced almost zero error discrepancy between Experiment II, thus considering such method accurate.The results obtain clearly suggests that the inverse relationship of word frequency and duration of exposure. In this case, reading a word in an increased duration can therefore, increase the recognition of the word.
Moreover, abrupt exposure of words but frequent repetitions can still help instill the word recognition in the mind. In the methodology however, there are still differences that occurred between Experiment I and II. The principal difference between the two experiments is the length of the words being used.In Experiment I, the number of words is 60 while in Experiment II the number of words is only 15. This factor produced large effect in the magnitude of threshold (p. 407) Contributing factors in the results of the experiments are also present.
The length or words, synonyms present and ending letters especially for plural play an important uncontrollable yet significant part in the considerations of the result. This is the reason why Experiment II is proposed due to the fact that the number of words in Experiment I might have contained these contributing factors.If in case these are present and are also suited for the subject, then the test is going to be easy for the subject making the recognition a lot faster, however impairing as well the result of the experiment. Experiment II with decrease number of words and lesser occurrence of this contributing factors is done in order to validate the data obtain in the latter experiment. Conclusion In conclusion of this study, we have found out that such word frequency can effect our recognition thus, helping us to grasp the word more quickly. Duration of exposure also play in the part of recognition granted visual or auditory are also properly present.The exact relationship between repetition and duration is inverse. These findings can be beneficial in various applications especially in learning facilities.
Suggesting frequent reading does not however, proportionately facilitate understanding of these words. Only recognition or memorization of these words is dealt upon by this word frequent effect.REFERENCEAltman, G. M. (2002). Psycholinguistics: Critical Concepts in Psychology. Taylor & Francis. Howes, D.
H. , & Richard, L. S. (1951).
Visual Duration Threshold as a Function of Word Probability. Harvard University: