Evidence for delayed parafoveal-on-foveal effects from word n+2 in reading

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Volumn 38, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 1026-1042

  Risse, Sarah ^a   Kliegl, Reinhold ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF POTSDAM   (Germany)

Author keywords

Eye movements; Mislocated fixations; N+2 boundary paradigm; Parafoveal on foveal effect; Perceptual span; Preview benefit

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; EYE FIXATION; EYE MOVEMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; LINGUISTICS; MALE; METHODOLOGY; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; OCULOGRAPHY; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; READING; RECOGNITION; RETINA FOVEA; TIME; VISION;

ADULT; EYE MOVEMENT MEASUREMENTS; EYE MOVEMENTS; FEMALE; FIXATION, OCULAR; FOVEA CENTRALIS; HUMANS; MALE; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; READING; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); TIME FACTORS; VISUAL PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84873715407     PISSN: 00961523     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0027735     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Angele, B., & Rayner, K. (2011). Parafoveal preprocessing of word n+2 during reading: Do the preceding words matter? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 1210-1220. doi: 10.1037/a0023096
2. Angele, B., Slattery, T., Yang, J., Kliegl, R., & Rayner, K. (2008). Parafoveal processing in reading: Manipulating n+1 and n+2 previews simultaneously. Visual Cognition, 16, 697-707. doi:10.1080/ 13506280802009704
3. Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
4. Balota, D. A., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (1985). The interaction of contextual constraints and parafoveal visual information in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 364-390. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(85) 90013-1
5. Bates, D., & Maechler, M. (2010). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-35. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
6. Bouma, H. (1973). Visual interference in the parafoveal recognition of initial and final letters of words. Vision Research, 13, 767-782. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(73)90041-2
7. Brysbaert, M., & Vitu, F. (1998). Word skipping: Implications for theories of eye movement control in reading. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 125-147). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978-008043361-5/50007-9
8. Drieghe, D., Brysbaert, M., Desmet, T., & DeBaecke, C. (2004). Word skipping in reading: On the interplay of linguistic and visual factors. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 79-103. doi:10.1080/ 09541440340000141
9. Drieghe, D., Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2008). Mislocated fixations can account for parafoveal-on-foveal effects in eye movements during reading. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 1239-1249. doi:10.1080/17470210701467953
10. Engbert, R., & Krügel, A. (2010). Readers use Bayesian estimation for eye-movement control. Psychological Science, 21, 366-371. doi: 10.1177/0956797610362060
11. Engbert, R., Nuthmann, A., Richter, E., & Kliegl, R. (2005). SWIFT: A dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. Psychological Review, 112, 777-813. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.112.4.777
12. Gautier, V., O'Regan, K. J., & Le Gargasson, J. F. (2000). "Theskipping" revisited in French: Programming saccades to skip the article "les." Vision Research, 40, 2517-2531. doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(00)00089-4
13. Geyken, A. (2007). The DWDS-Corpus: A reference corpus for the German language of the 20th century. In C. Fellbaum (Ed.), Collocations and idioms: Linguistic, lexicographic, and computational aspects (pp. 23-40). London, UK: Continuum Press.
14. Heister, J., Würzner, K. M., Bubenzer, J., Pohl, E., Hanneforth, T., Geyken, A., & Kliegl, R. (2011). dlexDB Eine lexikalische Datenbank für die psychologische und linguistische Forschung. Psychologische Rundschau, 62, 10-20. doi:10.1026/0033-3042/a000029
15. Huey, E. B. (1908). The psychology and pedagogy of reading. New York, NY: Macmillan.
16. Hyönä, J., & Bertram, R. (2004). Do frequency characteristics of nonfixated words influence the processing of fixated words during reading? European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 104-127. doi:10.1080/ 09541440340000132
17. Inhoff, A. W., Radach, R., Starr, M., & Greenberg, S. (2000). Allocation of visuo-spatial attention and saccade programming during reading. In A. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller, & J. Pynte (Eds.), Reading as a perceptual process (pp. 221-246). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978-008043642-5/50012-7
18. Inhoff, A. W., Starr, M., Liu, W., & Wang, J. (1998). Eye-movementcontingent display changes are not compromised by flicker and phosphor persistence. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 101-106. doi: 10.3758/BF03209463
19. Inhoff, A. W., Starr, M., & Shindler, K. L. (2000). Is the processing of words during eye fixations in reading strictly serial? Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 1474-1484. doi:10.3758/BF03212147
20. Inhoff, A. W., & Tousman, S. (1990). Lexical integration across eye fixations in reading. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 52, 330-337. doi:10.1007/BF00868065
21. Inhoff, A. W. (1990). Integrating information across eye fixations in reading. Acta Psychologica, 73, 281-297. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(90)90027-D
22. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329-354. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.87.4.329
23. Kennedy, A., Pynte, J., & Ducrot, S. (2002). Parafoveal-on-foveal interactions in word recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 55, 1307-1337.
24. Kennedy, A., & Pynte, J. (2005). Parafoveal-on-foveal effects in normal reading. Vision Research, 45, 153-168. doi:10.1016/j.visres .2004.07.037
25. Kennedy, A. (1998). The influence of parafoveal words on foveal inspection time: Evidence for a processing trade-off. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 149-179). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978-008043361-5/50008-0
26. Kennedy, A. (2008). Parafoveal-on-foveal effects are not an artifact of mislocated saccades. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 2(1):2, 1-10.
27. Kliegl, R., & Engbert, R. (2005). Fixation durations before word skipping in reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 132-138. doi:10.3758/ BF03196358
28. Kliegl, R., Nuthmann, A., & 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, 12-35. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.12
29. Kliegl, R., Risse, S., & Laubrock, J. (2007). Preview benefit and parafoveal-on-foveal effects from word n+2. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 1250-1255. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.33.5.1250
30. Lee, H. W., Legge, G. E., & Ortiz, A. (2003). Is word recognition different in central and peripheral vision? Vision Research, 43, 2837-2846. doi: 10.1016/S0042-6989(03)00479-6
31. McConkie, G. W., Kerr, P. W., Reddix, M. D., & Zola, D. (1988). Eye movement control during reading: I. The location of initial fixations on words. Vision Research, 28, 1107-1118. doi:10.1016/0042-6989(88)90137-X
32. McConkie, G. W., & Rayner, K. (1976). Asymmetry of the perceptual span in reading. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 8, 365-368.
33. McConkie, G. W., & Rayner, R. (1975). The span of the effective stimulus during a fixation in reading. Perception & Psychophysics, 17, 578-586. doi:10.3758/BF03203972
34. McConkie, G. W., & Zola, D. (1979). Is visual information integrated across successive fixations in reading? Perception & Psychophysics, 25, 221-224. doi:10.3758/BF03202990
35. McDonald, S. A., Carpenter, R. H. S., & Shillcock, R. C. (2005). An anatomically constrained, stochastic model of eye movement control in reading. Psychological Review, 112, 814-840. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.112.4.814
36. McDonald, S. A. (2006). Parafoveal preview benefit in reading is only obtained from the saccade goal. Vision Research, 46, 4416-4424. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2006.08.027
37. 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, 667-682. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.10.5.667
38. Murray, W. S. (1998). Parafoveal pragmatics. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 181-199). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978-008043361-5/50009-2
39. Nuthmann, A., Engbert, R., & Kliegl, R. (2005). Mislocated fixations during reading and the inverted optimal viewing position effect. Vision Research, 45, 2201-2217. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2005.02.014
40. O'Regan, J. K. (1990). Eye movements and reading. In E. Kowler (Ed.), Eye movements and their role in visual and cognitive processes (pp. 395-453). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
41. Pollatsek, A., Reichle, E. D., & Rayner, K. (2006a). Tests of the E-Z Reader model: Exploring the interface between cognition and eyemovement control. Cognitive Psychology, 52, 1-56. doi:10.1016/ j.cogpsych.2005.06.001
42. Pollatsek, A., Reichle, E. D., & Rayner, K. (2006b). 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, 1496-1500. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.32.6.1496
43. Pynte, J., & Kennedy, A. (2006). Control over eye movements in reading can be exerted from beyond the level of the word: Evidence from reading English and French. Vision Research, 46, 3786-3791. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2006.07.004
44. Pynte, J., & Kennedy, A. (2007). The influence of punctuation and word class on distributed processing in normal reading. Vision Research, 47, 1215-1227. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2006.12.006
45. Radach, R., Glover, L., Vorstius, C., & Inhoff, A. W. (2011). Contextual constraint and N+2 preview effects in reading. Manuscript submitted for publication.
46. Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition, 14, 191-201. doi:10.3758/ BF03197692
47. Rayner, K., Juhasz, B. J., & Brown, S. J. (2007). 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, 33, 230-245. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.33.1.230
48. Rayner, K., & Juhasz, B. J. (2004). Eye movements in reading: Old questions and new directions. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 340-352. doi:10.1080/09541440340000385
49. Rayner, K., & Morrison, R. E. (1981). Eye movements and identifying words in parafoveal vision. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 17, 135-138.
50. Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1983). Is visual information integrated across saccades? Perception & Psychophysics, 34, 39-48. doi:10.3758/ BF03205894
51. Rayner, K., Warren, T., Juhasz, B. J., & Liversedge, S. P. (2004). The effect of plausibility on eye movements in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 1290-1301. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.30.6.1290
52. Rayner, K., White, S. J., Kambe, G., Miller, B., & Liversedge, S. P. (2003). On the processing of meaning from parafoveal vision during eye fixations in reading. In J. Hyönä, R. Radach, and H. Deubel (Eds.), The mind's eye: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research (pp 213-234). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North Holland.
53. Rayner, K. (1975). The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 65-81. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(75)90005-5
54. Reichle, E. D., Pollatsek, A., Fisher, D. L., & Rayner, K. (1998). Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. Psychological Review, 105, 125-157. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.105.1.125
55. Reichle, E. D., Liversedge, S. P., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (2009). Encoding multiple words in reading simultaneously is implausible. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 115-119. doi:10.1016/ j.tics.2008.12.002
56. Reichle, E. D., Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2003). The E-Z Reader model of eye movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26, 446-526.
57. Reichle, E. D., Warren, T., & McConnell, K. (2009). Using E-Z Reader to model the effects of higher level language processing on eye movements during reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 1-21. doi:10.3758/PBR.16.1.1
58. Reilly, R. G., & Radach, R. (2006). Some empirical tests of an interactive activation model of eye movement control in reading. Cognitive Systems Research, 7, 34-55. doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2005.07.006
59. Richter, E. M., Engbert, R., & Kliegl, R. (2006). Current advances in SWIFT. Cognitive Systems Research, 7, 23-33. doi:10.1016/ j.cogsys.2005.07.003
60. Risse, S., Engbert, R., & Kliegl, R. (2008). Eye-movement control in reading: Experimental and corpus-analytic challenges for a computational model. In K. Rayner, D. Shen, X. Bai, & G. Yan (Eds.), Cognitive and Cultural Influences on Eye Movements (pp. 65-91). Tianjin, China: People's Publishing House.
61. Risse, S., & Kliegl, R. (2011). Adult age differences in the perceptual span during reading. Psychology and Aging, 26, 451-460. doi:10.1037/a0021616
62. Schad, D. J., Nuthmann, A., & Engbert, R. (2010). Eye movements during reading of randomly shuffled texts. Vision Research, 50, 2600-2616. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2010.08.005
63. Schiepers, C. (1980). Response latency and accuracy in visual word recognition. Perception & Psychophysics, 27, 71-81. doi:10.3758/ BF03199908
64. Slattery, T. J., Angele, B., & Rayner, K. (in press). Eye movements and display change detection during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.
65. Vitu, F., Lancelin, D., Jean, A., & Farioli, F. (2006). Influence of foveal distractors on saccadic eye movements: A dead zone for the global effect. Vision Research, 46, 4684-4708. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2006.08.029
66. Wang, C. A., Inhoff, A. W., & Radach, R. (2009). Is attention confined to one word at a time? The spatial distribution of parafoveal preview benefits during reading. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71, 1487-1494. doi:10.3758/APP.71.7.1487
67. Yan, M., Kliegl, R., Shu, H., Pan, J., & Zhou, X. (2010). Parafoveal load of word n+1 modulates preprocessing effectiveness of word n+2in Chinese reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 1669-1676. doi:10.1037/a0019329