How preview space/time translates into preview cost/benefit for fixation durations during reading

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Volumn 66, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 581-600

  Kliegl, Reinhold ^a   Hohenstein, Sven ^a   Yan, Ming ^a   McDonald, Scott A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF POTSDAM   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF STRATHCLYDE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Boundary paradigm; Eye movements; Linear mixed model; Preview effects; Reading

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; COMPREHENSION; EYE FIXATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; READING; RECOGNITION; RETINA FOVEA; SEMANTICS; TIME; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; ATTENTION; COMPREHENSION; FEMALE; FIXATION, OCULAR; FOVEA CENTRALIS; HUMANS; MALE; PHOTIC STIMULATION; READING; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SEMANTICS; TIME FACTORS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84875298302     PISSN: 17470218     EISSN: 17470226     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2012.658073     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Angele, B., Slattery, T., Yang, J., Kliegl, R. and Rayner, K. 2008. Parafoveal processing in reading: Manipulating n+1 and n+2 previews simultaneously. Visual Cognition, 16: 697-707. (doi:10.1080/13506280802009704)
2. Baayen, R. H. 2008. Practical data analysis for the language sciences with R, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
3. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J. and Bates, D. M. 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59: 390-412. (doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005)
4. Bates, D. M., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2011). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes (R package version 0.999375-42) [Computer software]. Available athttp://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4
5. Burnage, G., & Dunlop, D. (1992). Encoding the British National Corpus. In J. M. Aarts, P. de Haan, & N. Oostdijk (Eds.), English language corpora: Design, analysis, exploitation (pp. 79-95). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Rodopi.
6. Drieghe, D., Rayner, K. and Pollatsek, A. 2008. Mislocated fixations can account for parafoveal-on-foveal effects in eye movements during reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61: 1239-1249. (doi:10.1080/17470210701467953)
7. Engbert, R. and Kliegl, R. 2001. Mathematical models of eye movements in reading: A possible role for autonomous saccades. Biological Cybernetics, 85: 77-87. (doi:10.1007/PL00008001)
8. 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.
9. Engbert, R., Nuthmann, A., Richter, E. and 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
10. Heller, D. and Müller, H. J. 1983. "On the relationship between saccade size and fixation duration in reading". In Eye movements and psychological processes, Edited by: Groner, R., Menz, C., Fisher, D. F. and Monty, R. A. 287-302. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11. 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 & Cognition, 16: 417-429. (doi:10.1037/0278-7393.16.3.417)
12. Hohenstein, S., Laubrock, J. and Kliegl, R. 2010. Semantic preview benefit in eye movements during reading: A parafoveal fast-priming study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 36: 1150-1170. (doi:10.1037/a0020233)
13. 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: 979-995. (doi:10.1037/0096-1523.31.5.979)
14. Inhoff, A. W., Radach, R., Starr, M. and Greenberg, S. 2000. "Allocation of visuo-spatial attention and saccade programming during reading". In Reading as a perceptual process, Edited by: Kennedy, A., Radach, R., Heller, D. and Pynte, J. 221-246. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
15. Jonides, J. and Mack, R. 1984. On the cost and benefit of cost and benefit. Psychological Bulletin, 96: 29-44. (doi:10.1037/0033-2909.96.1.29)
16. Kennedy, A. 2000a. "Attention allocation in reading: Sequential or parallel". In Reading as a perceptual process, Edited by: Kennedy, A., Radach, R., Heller, D. and Pynte, J. 193-220. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
17. Kennedy, A. 2000b. Parafoveal processing in word recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A: 429-456.
18. Kennedy, A. 2008. Parafoveal-on-foveal effects are not an artifact of mislocated fixations. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 2, 1-10
19. Kliegl, R. 2007. Towards a perceptual-span theory of distributed processing in reading: A reply to Rayner, Pollatsek, Drieghe, Slattery, & Reichle (2007). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138: 530-537. (doi:10.1037/0096-3445.136.3.530)
20. Kliegl, R., & Engbert, R. (2003). How tight is the link between lexical processing and saccade programs? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26, 491-492.
21. Kliegl, R., Masson, M. E. J. and Richter, E. M. 2010. A linear mixed model analysis of masked repetition priming. Visual Cognition, 18: 655-681. (doi:10.1080/13506280902986058)
22. 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: 13-35. (doi:10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.12)
23. 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: 1250-1255. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.33.5.1250
24. Kliegl, R., Wei, P., Dambacher, M., Yan, M. and Zhou, X. 2011. Experimental effects and individual differences in linear mixed models: Estimating the relationship between spatial, object, and attraction effects in visual attention. Frontiers in Quantitative Psychology and Measurement, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00238
25. McConkie, G. W. and Rayner, K. 1975. The span of the effective stimulus during a fixation in reading. Perception & Psychophysics, 17: 578-586. (doi:10.3758/BF03203972)
26. McDonald, S. A. 2005. Parafoveal preview benefit in reading is not cumulative across multiple saccades. Vision Research, 45: 1829-1834. (doi:10.1016/j.visres.2005.01.008)
27. 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)
28. Nuthmann, A., Engbert, R. and 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)
29. Pinheiro, J., & Bates, D. (2000). Mixed-effects models in S and S-Plus. New York: Springer.
30. Quené, H. and Van den Bergh, H. 2004. On multi-level modeling of data from repeated measures designs: A tutorial. Speech Communications, 43: 103-121. (doi:10.1016/j.specom.2004.02.004)
31. Quené, H. and Van den Bergh, H. 2008. Examples of mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects and with binomial data. Journal of Memory and Language, 59: 413-425. (doi:10.1016/j.jml.2008.02.002)
32. R Development Core Team. 2011. "R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]". Wien, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
33. Rayner, K. 1975. The perceptual span and peripheral cues during reading. Cognitive Psychology, 7: 65-81. (doi:10.1016/0010-0285(75)90005-5)
34. Rayner, K. 2009. Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62: 1457-1506. (doi:10.1080/17470210902816461)
35. Rayner, K., Juhasz, B. J. and 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 & Performance, 33: 230-245. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.33.1.230
36. Reichle, E. D., Pollatsek, A., Fisher, D. L. and 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)
37. Reichle, E. D., Warren, T. and 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: 1-20. (doi:10.3758/PBR.16.1.1)
38. Reilly, R. and 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)
39. Risse, S. and Kliegl, R. 2011. Adult age differences in the perceptual span during reading. Psychology and Aging, 26: 451-460. (doi:10.1037/a0021616)
40. 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, 52A: 1021-1046.
41. Slattery, T. J., Angele, B. and Rayner, K. 2011. Eye movements and display change detection during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37: 1924-1938. (doi:10.1037/a0024322)
42. Vergilino-Perez, D. and Beauvillain, C. 2004. The ability of the saccadic system to change motor plans in scanning letter strings. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 11: 332-337. (doi:10.3758/BF03196579)
43. White, S. J., Rayner, K. and Liversedge, S. P. 2005. The influence of parafoveal word length and contextual constraint on fixation durations and word skipping in reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12: 466-471. (doi:10.3758/BF03193789)
44. Wickham, H. 2009. ggplot2. Elegant graphics for data analysis, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
45. Yan, M., Kliegl, R., Shu, H., Pan, J. and Zhou, X. 2010. Parafoveal load of word n+1 modulates preprocessing of word n+2. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36: 1669-1676. doi:10.1037/a0019329
46. Yan, M., Richter, E., Shu, H. and Kliegl, R. 2009. Chinese readers extract semantic information from parafoveal words during reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16: 561-566. (doi:10.3758/PBR.16.3.561)
47. Yan, M., Risse, S., Zhou, X. and Kliegl, R. in press. Preview fixation duration modulates identical and semantic preview benefit in Chinese reading. Reading and Writing, Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s11145-010-9274-7
48. Yan, M., Richter, E. M., Guo, T. and Sommer, W. 2012. Parafoveal and foveal effects of emotional words while reading Chinese sentences: Evidence from an eye movement study, Manuscript submitted for publication