How strongly do word reading times and lexical decision times correlate? Combining data from eye movement corpora and megastudies

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Volumn 66, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 563-580

  Kuperman, Victor ^a   Drieghe, Denis ^b   Keuleers, Emmanuel ^c   Brysbaert, Marc ^c  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

^c GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Corpus; Eye movements; Gaze duration; Lexical decision; Megastudy; Naming; Visual word recognition

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; DECISION MAKING; EYE MOVEMENT; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; NOMENCLATURE; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; REACTION TIME; READING; RECOGNITION; REPRODUCIBILITY; SEMANTICS; TIME;

ATTENTION; DECISION MAKING; EYE MOVEMENTS; HUMANS; NAMES; PHOTIC STIMULATION; REACTION TIME; READING; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SEMANTICS; TIME FACTORS; VOCABULARY;

EID: 84875328935     PISSN: 17470218     EISSN: 17470226     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2012.658820     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Adelman, J., Brown, G. and Quesada, J. 2006. Contextual diversity, not word frequency, determines word-naming and lexical decision times. Psychological Science, 17(9): 814 (doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01787.x)
2. Baayen, R.H. 2011. Demythologizing the word frequency effect: A discriminative learning perspective. The Mental Lexicon, 5(3): 436-461. (doi:10.1075/ml.5.3.10baa)
3. Baayen, R. H., Feldman, L. B., & Schreuder, R. (2006). Morphological influences on the recognition of monosyllabic monomorphemic words. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 290-313.
4. Balota, D. A. and Chumbley, J. I. 1984. Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical access: The role of word frequency in the neglected decision stage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10: 340-357. (doi:10.1037/0096-1523.10.3.340)
5. Balota, D. A., Cortese, M. J., Sergent-Marshall, S. D., Spieler, D. H., & Yap, M. J. (2004). Visual word recognition of single-syllable words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 283-316.
6. Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B.Loftis, B. 2007. The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods, 39: 445-459. (doi:10.3758/BF03193014)
7. Binder, K. S., Duffy, S. A. and Rayner, K. 2001. The effects of thematic fit and discourse context on syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 4: 297-324. (doi:10.1006/jmla.2000.2754)
8. Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., Garrod, S. and Rayner, K. 1992. Parsing in discourse: Context effects and their limits. Journal of Memory & Language, 31: 293-314. (doi:10.1016/0749-596X(92)90015-P)
9. Brysbaert, M., Buchmeier, M., Conrad, M., Jacobs, A. M., Bölte, J. and Böhl, A. 2011. The word frequency effect: A review of recent developments and implications for the choice of frequency estimates in German. Experimental Psychology, 58: 412-424. (doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000123)
10. Brysbaert, M., Drieghe, D. and Vitu, F. 2005. "Word skipping: Implications for theories of eye movement control in reading". In Cognitive processes in eye guidance, Edited by: Underwood, G. 53-77. Oxford, UK: University Press.
11. Brysbaert, M. and New, B. 2009. Moving beyond Kucera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41: 977-990. (doi:10.3758/BRM.41.4.977)
12. Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Ziegler, J. and Langdon, R. 2001. DRC: A dual route cascaded model of word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108: 204-256. (doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.1.204)
13. Cortese, M. J., & Khanna, M. M. (2007). Age of acquisition predicts naming and lexical-decision performance above and beyond 22 other predictor variables: An analysis of 2,342 words. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 1072-1082.
14. Dambacher, M. and Kliegl, R. 2007. Synchronizing timelines: Relations between fixation durations and N400 amplitudes during sentence reading. Brain Research, 1155: 147-162. (doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2007.04.027)
15. Drieghe, D. 2011. "Parafoveal-on-foveal effects on eye movements during reading". In Oxford handbook of eye movements (pp. 839-855), Edited by: Liversedge, S. P., Gilchrist, I. D. and Everling, S. Oxford, UK: University Press.
16. Engbert, R., Nuthmann, A., Richter, E., & Kliegl, R. (2005). SWIFT: A dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. Psychological Review, 112, 777-813.
17. Ferrand, L., New, B., Brysbaert, M., Keuleers, E., Bonin, P.Meot, A. 2010. The French Lexicon Project: Lexical decision data for 38,840 French words and 38,840 pseudowords. Behavior Research Methods, 42: 488-496. (doi:10.3758/BRM.42.2.488)
18. Forster, K. I., & Chambers, S. M. (1973). Lexical access and naming time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 627-635.
19. Forster, K., Guererra, C. and Elliot, L. 2009. The maze task: Measuring forced incremental sentence processing time. Behavior Research Methods, 41: 163-171. (doi:10.3758/BRM.41.1.163)
20. Gibbs, P. and Van Orden, G. C. 1998. Pathway selection's utility for control of word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24: 1162-1187. (doi:10.1037/0096-1523.24.4.1162)
21. Inhoff, A. W. 1989. Lexical access during eye fixations in reading: Are word access codes used to integrate lexical information across interword fixations?. Journal of Memory and Language, 28: 444-461. (doi:10.1016/0749-596X(89)90021-1)
22. Just, M. A. and 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. and Pynte, J. 2005. Parafoveal-on-foveal effects in normal reading. Vision Research, 45: 153-168. (doi:10.1016/j.visres.2004.07.037)
24. Kennedy, A., & Pynte, J. (2009). Non-canonical reading: Reply to Rayner, Pollatsek, Liversedge and Reichle (2008). Vision Research, 49, 2237-2239.
25. Kennedy, A., Pynte, J., & Ducrot, S. (2002). Parafoveal-on-foveal interactions in word recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 1307-1337.
26. Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2011). Detecting inherent bias in lexical decision experiments with the LD1NN algorithm. The Mental Lexicon, 6, 34-52.
27. Keuleers, E., Brysbaert, M. and New, B. 2010. SUBTLEX-NL: A new frequency measure for Dutch words based on film subtitles. Behavior Research Methods, 42: 643-650. (doi:10.3758/BRM.42.3.643)
28. Keuleers, E., Diependaele, K. and Brysbaert, M. 2010. Practice effects in large-scale visual word recognition studies: A lexical decision study on 14,000 Dutch mono- and disyllabic words and nonwords. Frontiers in Language Sciences, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00174
29. Keuleers, E., Lacey, P., Rastle, K. and Brysbaert, M. in press. The British Lexicon Project: Lexical decision data for 28,730 monosyllabic and disyllabic English words. Behavior Research Methods,
30. Kinoshita, S. and Lupker, S. J. 2002. Effects of filler type in naming: Change in time criterion or attentional control of pathways?. Memory & Cognition, 30: 1277-1287. (doi:10.3758/BF03213409)
31. 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.
32. 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: 12-35. (doi:10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.12)
33. Kucera, H., & Francis, W. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
34. Kuperman, V., Bertram, R. and Baayen, R. H. 2010. Processing trade-offs in the reading of Dutch derived words. Journal of Memory and Language, 62: 83-97. (doi:10.1016/j.jml.2009.10.001)
35. Kuperman, V., Dambacher, M., Nuthmann, A. and Kliegl, R. 2010. The effect of word position on eye-movements in sentence and paragraph reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63: 1838-1957. (doi:10.1080/17470211003602412)
36. McDonald, S. and Shillcock, R. 2001. Rethinking the word frequency effect: The neglected role of distributional information in lexical processing. Language and Speech, 44: 295-323. (doi:10.1177/00238309010440030101)
37. Murray, W. S. and Forster, K. I. 2004. Serial mechanisms in lexical access: The rank hypothesis. Psychological Review, 111: 721-756. (doi:10.1037/0033-295X.111.3.721)
38. Murray, W. S. and Forster, K. I. 2008. The rank hypothesis and lexical decision: A reply to Adelman and Brown (2008). Psychological Review, 115: 240-251. (doi:10.1037/0033-295X.115.1.240)
39. New, B., Ferrand, L., Pallier, C. and Brysbaert, M. 2006. Re-examining word length effects in visual word recognition: New evidence from the English Lexicon Project. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13: 45-52. (doi:10.3758/BF03193811)
40. Radach, R., Huestegge, L. and Railey, R. 2008. The role of global top-down factors in local eye-movement control in reading. Psychological Research, 72: 675-688. (doi:10.1007/s00426-008-0173-3)
41. Rayner, K. 2009. Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62: 1457-1506. (doi:10.1080/17470210902816461)
42. Rayner, K. and Pollatsek, A. 1989. The psychology of reading, New York, NY: Prentice-Hall.
43. Rayner, K., Pollatsek, A., Drieghe, D., Slattery, T. J., & 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, 520-529.
44. 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, 1188-1200
45. Reichle, E. D., Liversedge, S. P., Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2009). Encoding multiple words simultaneously in reading is implausible. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 115-119.
46. Reichle, E. D., McConnell, K. and Warren, T. 2009. Using E-Z Reader to model the effects of higher-level language processing on eye movements during reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(1): 1-21. (doi:10.3758/PBR.16.1.1)
47. 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.
48. 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, 445-476.
49. Schilling, H. E. H., Rayner, K. and Chumbley, J. I. 1998. Comparing naming, lexical decision, and eye fixation times: Word frequency effects and individual differences. Memory & Cognition, 26: 1270-1281. (doi:10.3758/BF03201199)
50. Wotschak, C. and Kliegl, R. 2013. Reading strategy modulates parafoveal-on-foveal effects in sentence reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 548-562
51. Yap, M. J., & Balota, D. A. (2009). Visual word recognition of multisyllabic words. Journal of Memory & Language, 60, 502-529.