The zoom lens of attention: Simulating shuffled versus normal text reading using the SWIFT model

Visual Cognition

Volumn 20, Issue 4-5, 2012, Pages 391-421

  Schad, Daniel J ^a   Engbert, Ralf ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF POTSDAM   (Germany)

Author keywords

Computational modelling; Eye movements; Foveal load hypothesis; Perceptual span; Reading; Zoom lens model of attention

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; EYE MOVEMENT; PERCEPTION; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS MODEL; READING; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISUAL FIELD; WORD RECOGNITION;

EID: 84862228931     PISSN: 13506285     EISSN: 14640716     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13506285.2012.670143     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Brysbaert, M. and Vitu, F. 1998. "Word skipping: Implications for theories of eye movement control in reading". In Eye guidance in reading and scene perception, Edited by: Underwood, G. 125-147. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
2. Diana, R. A. and Reder, L. M. 2006. The low-frequency encoding disadvantage: Word frequency affects processing demands. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(4): 805-815.
3. Downing, C. J. and Pinker, S. 1985. "The spatial structure of visual attention". In Attention and performance XI: Mechanisms of attention, Edited by: Posner, M. I. and Matin, O. S. 171-187. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
4. Drieghe, D., Brysbaert, M., Desmet, T. and De Baecke, C. 2004. Word skipping in reading: On the interplay of linguistic and visual factors. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16(1-2): 79-103.
5. Engbert, R. and Kliegl, R. 2001. Mathematical models of eye movements in reading: A possible role for autonomous saccades. Biological Cybernetics, 85(2): 77-87.
6. Engbert, R. and Kliegl, R. 2011. "Parallel graded attention models of reading". In Oxford handbook of eye movements, Edited by: Liversedge, S. P., Gilchrist, I. D. and Everling, S. 787-800. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
7. Engbert, R., Longtin, A. and Kliegl, R. 2002. A dynamical model of saccade generation in reading based on spatially distributed lexical processing. Vision Research, 42(5): 621-636.
8. Engbert, R., Nuthmann, A., Richter, E. M. and Kliegl, R. 2005. SWIFT: A dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. Psychological Review, 112(4): 777-813.
9. Eriksen, C. W. and Hoffman, J. E. 1972. Temporal and spatial characteristics of selective encoding from visual displays. Perception and Psychophysics, 12(2B): 201-204.
10. Eriksen, C. W. and St James, J. D. 1986. Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention-a zoom lens model. Perception and Psychophysics, 40(4): 225-240.
11. Erlhagen, W. and Schöner, G. 2002. Dynamic field theory of movements preparation. Psychological Review, 109: 545-572.
12. Findlay, J. M. and Walker, R. 1999. A model of saccade generation based on parallel processing and competitive inhibition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22: 661-721.
13. Henderson, J. M. and Ferreira, F. 1990. 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, 16(3): 417-429.
14. Hogaboam, T. W. 1983. "Reading patterns in eye movements". In Eye movements in reading: Perceptual and language processes, Edited by: Rayner, K. 309-332. New York, NY: Academic Press.
15. Inhoff, A. W., Eiter, B. M. and Radach, R. 2005. Time course of linguistic information extraction from consecutive words during eye fixations in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(5): 979-995.
16. Inhoff, A. W., Pollatsek, A., Posner, M. I. and Rayner, K. 1989. Covert attention and eye-movements during reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 41A(1): 63-89.
17. Inhoff, A. W. and Rayner, K. 1986. Parafoveal word-processing during eye fixations in reading-Effects of word-frequency. Perception and Psychophysics, 40(6): 431-439.
18. Just, M. A. and Carpenter, P. A. 1980. A theory of reading-From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87(4): 329-354.
19. Kennedy, A. and Pynte, J. 2005. Parafoveal-on-foveal effects in normal reading. Vision Research, 45(2): 153-168.
20. Kennison, S. M. and Clifton, C. 1995. Determinants of parafoveal preview benefit in high and low working-memory capacity readers-Implications for eye-movement control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(1): 68-81.
21. Kliegl, R. 2007. Toward a perceptual-span theory of distributed processing in reading: A reply to Rayner, Pollatsek, Drieghe, Slattery, and Reichle (2007). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(3): 530-537.
22. Kliegl, R. and Engbert, R. 2005. Fixation durations before word skipping in reading. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12(1): 132-138.
23. Kliegl, R., Grabner, E., Rolfs, M. and Engbert, R. 2004. Length, frequency, and predictability effects of words on eye movements in reading. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16(1-2): 262-284.
24. Kliegl, R., Nuthmann, A. and Engbert, R. 2006. Tracking the mind during reading: The influence of past, present, and future words on fixation durations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(1): 12-35.
25. Kliegl, R., Risse, S. and Laubrock, J. 2007. Preview benefit and parafoveal-on-foveal effects from word n+2. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(5): 1250-1255.
26. LaBerge, D. 1983. Spatial extent of attention to letters and words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9(3): 371-379.
27. LaBerge, D. and Brown, V. 1989. Theory of attentional operations in shape identification. Psychological Review, 96(1): 101-124.
28. Lamme, V. A. F. 2003. Why visual attention and awareness are different. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(1): 12-18.
29. McConkie, G. W., Kerr, P. W. and Dyre, B. P. 1994. "What are "normal" eye movements during reading: Toward a mathematical description". In Eye movements in reading, Edited by: Ygge, J. and Lennestrand, G. 315-327. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
30. McConkie, G. W. and Rayner, K. 1975. Span of effective stimulus during a fixation in reading. Perception and Psychophysics, 17(6): 578-586.
31. Morrison, R. E. 1984. Manipulation of stimulus onset delay in reading-evidence for parallel programming of saccades. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(5): 667-682.
32. Müller, N. G., Bartelt, O. A., Donner, T. H., Villringer, A. and Brandt, S. A. 2003. A physiological correlate of the "Zoom Lens" of visual attention. Journal of Neuroscience, 23(9): 3561-3565.
33. Nuthmann, A., Engbert, R. and Kliegl, R. 2005. Mislocated fixations during reading and the inverted optimal viewing position effect. Vision Research, 45: 2201-2217.
34. Nuthmann, A., Engbert, R. and Kliegl, R. 2007. The IOVP effect in mindless reading: Experiment and modeling. Vision Research, 47(7): 990-1002.
35. O'Regan, J. K. and Lévy-Schoen, A. 1987. "Eye movement strategy and tactics in word recognition and reading". In Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading, Edited by: Coltheart, M. 363-383. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
36. Pollatsek, A., Rayner, K. and Balota, D. A. 1986. Inferences about eye-movement control from the perceptual span in reading. Perception and Psychophysics, 40(2): 123-130.
37. Pollatsek, A., Reichle, E. D. and Rayner, K. 2006. Attention to one word at a time in reading is still a viable hypothesis: Rejoinder to Inhoff, Radach, and Eiter (2006). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(6): 1496-1500.
38. Posner, M. I. 1980. Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32: 3-25.
39. Pynte, J., Kennedy, A. and Ducrot, S. 2004. The influence of parafoveal typographical errors on eye movements in reading. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16(1-2): 178-202.
40. Radach, R. and Heller, D. 2000. "Relations between spatial and temporal aspects of eye movement control". In Reading as a perceptual process, Edited by: Kennedy, A., Radach, R., Heller, D. and Pynte, J. 165-191. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
41. Rayner, K. 1975. Perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 7(1): 65-81.
42. Rayner, K. 1979. Eye guidance in reading: Fixation locations within words. Perception, 8: 21-30.
43. Rayner, K. 1998. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3): 372-422.
44. Rayner, K. 2009. Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8): 1457-1506.
45. Rayner, K. and Duffy, S. A. 1986. Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading-Effects of word-frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory and Cognition, 14(3): 191-201.
46. Rayner, K. and Fischer, M. H. 1996. Mindless reading revisited: Eye movements during reading and scanning are different. Perception and Psychophysics, 58(5): 734-747.
47. Rayner, K., Pollatsek, A., Drieghe, D., Slattery, T. J. and Reichle, E. D. 2007. Tracking the mind during reading via eye movements: Comments on Kliegl, Nuthmann, and Engbert (2006). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(3): 520-529.
48. Rayner, K., Sereno, S. C. and Raney, G. E. 1996. Eye movement control in reading: A comparison of two types of models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22(5): 1188-1200.
49. Reder, L. M., Nhouyvanisvong, A., Schunn, C. D., Ayers, M. S., Angstadt, P. and Hiraki, K. 2000. A mechanistic account of the mirror effect for word frequency: A computational model of remember-know judgments in a continuous recognition paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(2): 294-320.
50. Reichle, E. D. 2011. "Serial attention models of reading". In Oxford handbook on eye movements, Edited by: Liversedge, S. P., Gilchrist, I. D. and Everling, S. 767-786. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
51. Reichle, E. D., Pollatsek, A., Fisher, D. L. and Rayner, K. 1998. Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. Psychological Review, 105(1): 125-157.
52. Reichle, E. D., Rayner, K. and Pollatsek, A. 2003. The E-Z Reader model of eye-movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26(4): 445-526.
53. Reichle, E. D., Reineberg, A. E. and Schooler, J. W. 2010. Eye movements during mindless reading. Psychological Science, 21(9): 1300-1310.
54. Reilly, R. G. and Radach, R. 2006. Some empirical tests of an interactive activation model of eye movement control in reading. Cognitive Systems Research, 7(1): 34-55.
55. Richter, E., Engbert, R. and Kliegl, R. 2006. Current advances in SWIFT. Cognitive Systems Research, 7: 23-33.
56. Risse, S. and Kliegl, R. 2011. Adult age differences in the perceptual span during reading. Psychology and Aging, 26(2): 451-460.
57. Schad, D. J., Nuthmann, A. and Engbert, R. 2010. Eye movements during reading of randomly shuffled text. Vision Research, 50(23): 2600-2616.
58. Schroyens, W., Vitu, F., Brysbaert, M. and d'Ydewalle, G. 1999. Eye movement control during reading: Foveal load and parafoveal processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 52A(4): 1021-1046.
59. Shulman, G. L., Wilson, J. and Sheehy, J. B. 1985. Spatial determinants of the distribution of attention. Perception and Psychophysics, 37(1): 59-65.
60. Trukenbrod, H. A., & Engbert, R. 2011. ICAT: A computational model for the adaptive control of fixation durations. Manuscript submitted for publication.
61. Vitu, F., McConkie, G. W., Kerr, P. and O'Regan, J. K. 2001. Fixation location effects on fixation durations during reading: An inverted optimal viewing position effect. Vision Research, 41(25-26): 3513-3533.
62. Vitu, F., O'Regan, J. K., Inhoff, A. W. and Topolski, R. 1995. Mindless reading-Eye-movement characteristics are similar in scanning letter strings and reading texts. Perception and Psychophysics, 57(3): 352-364.
63. White, S. J., Rayner, K. and Liversedge, S. P. 2005. Eye movements and the modulation of parafoveal processing by foveal processing difficulty: A reexamination. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12(5): 891-896.