Parafoveal Processing of Word n + 2 During Reading: Do the Preceding Words Matter?

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Volumn 37, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 1210-1220

  Angele, Bernhard ^a   Rayner, Keith ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Eye movement control; Parafoveal processing; Parafoveal on foveal effects; Preview benefit; Reading

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; COMPREHENSION; EYE FIXATION; HUMAN; MENTAL FUNCTION; READING; REFERENCE VALUE; RETINA FOVEA; VISION; VISUAL FIELD;

ATTENTION; COMPREHENSION; FIXATION, OCULAR; FOVEA CENTRALIS; HUMANS; MENTAL PROCESSES; READING; REFERENCE VALUES; VISION, OCULAR; VISUAL FIELDS; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 79961148084     PISSN: 00961523     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0023096     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. 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.
2. Baayen R., Davidson D., Bates D. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 2008, 59:390-412.
3. Bates D., Maechler M., Dai B. Lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes (R Package Version 0.999375-26) 2008, Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.
4. Davis C.J. N-Watch: A program for deriving neighborhood size and other psycholinguistic statistics. Behavior Research Methods 2005, 37:65-70.
5. Drieghe D., Brysbaert M., Desmet T. Parafoveal-on-foveal effects on eye movements in text reading: Does an extra space make a difference?. Vision Research 2005, 45:1693-1706.
6. Drieghe D., Pollatsek A., Staub A., Rayner K. The word grouping hypothesis and eye movements during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2008, 34:1552-1560.
7. 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.
8. Engbert R., Longtin A., Kliegl R. A dynamical model of saccade generation in reading based on spatially distributed lexical processing. Vision Research 2002, 42:621-636.
9. Engbert R., Nuthmann A., Richter E.M., Kliegl R. SWIFT: A dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. Psychological Review 2005, 112:777-813.
10. Gautier V., O'Regan J.K., Le Gargasson J.F. " The-skipping" revisited in French: Programming saccades to skip the article " les." Vision Research 2000, 40:2517-2531.
11. Henderson J.M., Ferreira F. The effects of foveal 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.
12. Kennedy A., Pynte J. The consequences of violations to reading order: An eye movement analysis. Vision Research 2008, 48:2309-2320.
13. 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.
14. McConkie G.W., Kerr P.W., Reddix M.D., Zola D. Eye movement control during reading: I. The location of initial eye fixations in words. Vision Research 1988, 28:1107-1118.
15. Nuthmann A., Engbert R., Kliegl R. Mislocated fixations during reading and the inverted optimal viewing position effect. Vision Research 2005, 45:2201-2217.
16. Posner M.I. Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 1980, 32:3-25.
17. Pynte J., Kennedy A., Ducrot S. The influence of Parafoveal typographical errors on eye movements in reading. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 2004, 16:178-202.
18. Radach R. Blickbewegungen beim Lesen [Eye movements during reading] 1996, Waxmann, Münster, Germany.
19. Radach, R., & Glover, L. (2007, August). Exploring the limits of spatially distributed word processing in normal reading: A new look at N - 2 preview effects. Paper presented at the 14th European Conference on Eye Movements, Potsdam, Germany.
20. Rayner K. The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading. Cognitive Psychology 1975, 7:65-81.
21. Rayner K. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin 1998, 124:372-422.
22. Rayner K. The Thirty-Fifth Sir Frederick Bartlett Lecture: Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2009, 62:1457-1506.
23. 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.
24. R: A language and environment for statistical computing 2009, R Development Core Team, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/.
25. Reichle E.D., Liversedge S.P., Pollatsek A., Rayner K. Encoding multiple words simultaneously in reading is implausible. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2009, 13:115-119.
26. Reichle E.D., Pollatsek A., Fisher D.L., Rayner K. Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. Psychological Review 1998, 105:125-157.
27. Reichle E.D., Pollatsek A., Rayner K. E-Z reader: A cognitive-control, serial-attention model of eye-movement behavior during reading. Cognitive Systems Research 2006, 7:4-22.
28. Risse S., Engbert R., Kliegl R. Eye-movement control in reading: Experimental and corpus-analytic challenges for a computational model. Cognitive and cultural influences on eye movements 2008, 65-92. Tianjin People's Press/Psychology Press, Tianjin, China. K. Rayner, D. Shen, X. Bai, G. Yan (Eds.).
29. Risse, S., & Kliegl, R. (in press). Investigating age differences in the perceptual span with the N + 2-boundary paradigm. Psychology and Aging.
30. White S.J., Rayner K., Liversedge S.P. Eye movements and the modulation of parafoveal processing by foveal processing difficulty: A reexamination. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2005, 12:891-896.