Adult Age Differences in the Perceptual Span During Reading

Psychology and Aging

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 451-460

  Risse, Sarah ^a   Kliegl, Reinhold ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF POTSDAM   (Germany)

Author keywords

Age differences; Compensation strategies; Parafoveal on foveal effect; Perceptual span; Preview benefit

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; AGED; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; GAZE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PERCEPTION; READING; RETINA FOVEA; WORD RECOGNITION;

AGE FACTORS; ATTENTION; COGNITION; EYE MOVEMENT MEASUREMENTS; FIXATION, OCULAR; HUMANS; MALE; READING; VISUAL PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79959294740     PISSN: 08827974     EISSN: 19391498     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0021616     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Allen P.A., Stadtlander L.M., Groth K.E., Pickle J.L., Madden D.J. Adult age invariance in sentence unitization. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition 2000, 7:54-67. doi: 10.1076/anec.7.1.54.808.
2. Angele, B., & Rayner, K. (in press). Parafoveal preprocessing of word n+2 during reading: Does a short n+1 word matter? Manuscript under revision.
3. Angele B., Slattery T., Yang J., Kliegl R., Rayner K. Parafoveal processing in reading: Manipulating n+1 and n+2 previews simultaneously. Visual Cognition 2008, 16:697-707. doi: 10.1080/13506280802009704.
4. Bates D., Maechler M. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes 2010, R package version 0.999375-35. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.
5. Cerella J. Age-related decline in extrafoveal letter perception. Journal of Gerontology 1985, 40:727-736.
6. Drieghe D., Rayner K., Pollatsek A. Mislocated fixations can account for parafoveal-on-foveal effects in eye movements during reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2008, 61:1239-1249. doi: 10.1080/17470210701467953.
7. Engbert R., Kliegl R. Noise-enhanced performance in reading. NeuroComputing 2003, 50:473-478. doi: 10.1016/S0925-2312(01)00711-1.
8. Engbert, R., & Kliegl, R. (2010). Parallel graded attention models of reading. Manuscript submitted for publication.
9. Engbert R., Mergenthaler K. Microsaccades are triggered by low retinal image slip. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2006, 103:7192-7197. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0509557103.
10. Geyken A. The DWDS-Corpus: A reference corpus for the German language of the 20th century. Collocations and idioms: Linguistic, lexicographic, and computational aspects 2007, 23-40. Continuum Press, London. C. Fellbaum (Ed.).
11. Hasher L., Stoltzfus E.R., Zacks R.T., Rypma B. Age and inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1991, 17:163-169. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.17.1.163.
12. Heister J., Würzner K.M., Bubenzer J., Pohl E., Hanneforth T., Geyken A., Kliegl R. dlexDB-Eine lexikalische Datenbank für die psychologische und linguistische Forschung. Psychologische Rundschau 2011, 62:10-20.
13. Henderson J.M., Ferreira F. Effects of foveal processing difficulty on the perceptual span in reading: Implications for attention and eye movement control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1990, 16:417-429. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.16.3.417.
14. Inhoff A.W. Integrating information across eye fixations in reading. Acta Psychologica 1990, 73:281-297. doi: 10.1016/0001-6918(90)90027-D.
15. Inhoff A.W., Tousman S. Lexical integration across eye fixations in reading. Psychological Research 1990, 52:330-337. doi: 10.1007/BF00868065.
16. Kemper S., Crow A., Kemtes K. Eye-fixation patterns of high- and low-span young and older adults: Down the garden path and back again. Psychology and Aging 2004, 19:157-170. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.19.1.157.
17. Kennedy A. The influence of parafoveal words on foveal inspection time: Evidence for a processing trade-off. Eye guidance in reading and scene perception 1998, 149-223. Elsevier, Oxford, doi: 10.1016/B978-008043361-5/50008-0. G. Underwood (Ed.).
18. Kennedy A. Parafoveal processing in word recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2000, 53(A):429-456. doi: 10.1080/027249800390556.
19. Kennedy A. Parafoveal-on-foveal effects are not an artifact of mislocated saccades. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 2 2008, 2:1-10.
20. Kliegl R., Engbert R. Fixation durations before word skipping in reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2005, 12:132-138.
21. Kliegl R., Grabner E., Rolfs M., Engbert R. Length, frequency, and predictability effects of words on eye movements in reading. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 2004, 16:262-284. doi: 10.1080/09541440340000213.
22. Kliegl R., Masson M.E.J., Richter E.M. A linear mixed model analysis of masked repetition priming. Visual Cognition 2010, 18:655-681. doi: 10.1080/13506280902986058.
23. Kliegl R., Risse S., Laubrock J. Preview benefit and parafoveal-on-foveal effects from word n+2. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2007, 33:1250-1255. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.33.5.1250.
24. Laubrock J., Kliegl R., Engbert R. SWIFT explorations of age differences in eye movements during reading. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 2006, 30:872-884. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2006.06.013.
25. Lee H.W., Legge G.E., Ortiz A. Is word recognition different in central and peripheral vision?. Vision Research 2003, 43:2837-2846. doi: 10.1016/S0042-6989(03)00479-6.
26. Lima S.D., Hale S., Myerson J. How general is general slowing? Evidence from the lexical domain. Psychology and Aging 1991, 6:416-425. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.6.3.416.
27. Mayr U., Kliegl R. Complex semantic processing in old age: Does it stay or does it go?. Psychology and Aging 2000, 15:29-43. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.15.1.29.
28. McConkie G.W., Rayner K. The span of the effective stimulus during a fixation in reading. Perception & Psychophysics 1975, 17:578-586.
29. McDonald S.A. Parafoveal preview benefit in reading is not cumulative across multiple saccades. Vision Research 2005, 45:1829-1834. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2005.01.008.
30. O'Regan J.K. Eye movements and reading. Eye movements and their role in visual and cognitive processes 1990, 395-453. Amsterdam, Elsevier. E. Kowler (Ed.).
31. Radach R., Heller D. Relations between spatial and temporal aspects of eye movement control. Reading as a perceptual process 2000, 165-191. Elsevier, Amsterdam, doi: 10.1016/B978-008043642-5/50010-3. A. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller, J. Pynte (Eds.).
32. Rayner K. The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading. Cognitive Psychology 1975, 7:65-81. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(75)90005-5.
33. Rayner K. Eye Movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2009, 62:1457-1506. doi: 10.1080/17470210902816461.
34. Rayner K., Bertera J.H. Reading without a fovea. Science 1979, 206:468-469. doi: 10.1126/science.504987.
35. Rayner K., Castelhano M.S., Yang J. Eye movements and the perceptual span in older and younger readers. Psychology and Aging 2009, 24:755-760. doi: 10.1037/a0014300.
36. Rayner K., Castelhano M.S., Yang J. Preview benefit during eye fixations in reading for older and younger readers. Psychology and Aging 2010, 25:714-718.
37. Rayner K., Juhasz B.J., Brown S.J. Do readers obtain preview benefit from word n+2? A test of serial attention shift versus distributed lexical processing models of eye movement control in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2007, 33:230-245. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.33.1.230.
38. Rayner K., Pollatsek A. Eye movements in reading: A tutorial review. Attention and performance X/I 1987, 327-362. Erlbaum, London. M. Coltheart (Ed.).
39. Rayner K., Reichle E.D., Stroud M.J., Williams C.C., Pollatsek A. The effects of word frequency, word predictability, and font difficulty on the eye movements of young and elderly readers. Psychology and Aging 2006, 21:448-465. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.21.3.448.
40. Reichle E.D., Rayner K., Pollatsek A. The E-Z Reader model of eye movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2003, 26:446-526. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X03000104.
41. Schmidt K.-H., Metzler P. Wortschatztest (WST) 1992, Beltz Test GmbH, Weinheim.
42. Stine-Morrow E.A.L., Shake M.C., Miles J.R., Lee K., Gao X., McConkie G. Pay now or pay later: Aging and the role of boundary salience in self-regulation of conceptual integration in sentence processing. Psychology and Aging 2010, 25:168-176. doi: 10.1037/a0018127.
43. Tewes U. Hamburg-Wechsler-Intelligenztest für Erwachsene-Revision 1991 (HAWIE-R) 1991, Huber, Bern, Stuttgart, Toronto.
44. Vitu F., McConkie G.W., Kerr P., O'Regan J.K. Fixation location effects on fixation durations during reading: An inverted optimal viewing position effect. Vision Research 2001, 41:3513-3533. doi: 10.1016/S0042-6989(01)00166-3.
45. Wang C., Inhoff A.W., Radach R. Is attention confined to one word at a time? The spatial distribution of parafoveal preview benefits during reading. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 2009, 71:1487-1494. doi: 10.3758/APP.71.7.1487.
46. Yan, M., Kliegl, R., Shu, H., Pan, J., & Zhou, X. (in press). Parafoveal load of word n+1 modulates preprocessing of word n+2. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.