Semantic preview benefit during reading

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

Volumn 40, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 166-190

  Hohenstein, Sven ^a   Klieg, Reinhold ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF POTSDAM   (Germany)

Author keywords

Display change awareness; Eye movements; Parafoveal processing; Reading; Semantic preview benefit

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; EYE FIXATION; EYE MOVEMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; MALE; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; READING; SEMANTICS; STATISTICAL MODEL; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; ATTENTION; EYE MOVEMENTS; FEMALE; FIXATION, OCULAR; HUMANS; LINEAR MODELS; MALE; PHOTIC STIMULATION; READING; SEMANTICS; VOCABULARY; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84890941107     PISSN: 02787393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0033670     Document Type: Article

References (124)

1. Altarriba, J., Kambe, G., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (2001). Semantic codes are not used in integrating information across eye fixations in reading: Evidence from fluent Spanish-English bilinguals. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 875-890. doi:10.3758/BF03194444
2. Ashby, J., & Rayner, K. (2004). Representing syllable information during silent reading: Evidence from eye movements. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19, 391-426. doi:10.1080/01690960344000233
3. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & 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. 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. M. (2010). lme4: Mixed-effects modeling with R. Retrieved from http://lme4.r-forge.r-project.org/book/
6. Bates, D., Mächler, M., & Bolker, B. (2011). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes (R package Version 0.999375-42) [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/
7. Bertram, R., & Hyönä, J. (2007). The interplay between parafoveal preview and morphological processing in reading. In R. P. G. van Gompel, M. H. Fischer, & R. L. Hill (Eds.), Eye movements: A window on mindand brain (pp. 391-407). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/B978-008044980-7/50019-7
8. Bock, M. (1989). Lesen in Abhängigkeit von der Groβ- und Kleinschreibung [Reading depending on capital and small letters]. Sprache & Kognition, 8, 133-151.
9. Bock, M. (1990). Zur Funktion der deutschen Groβ- und Kleinschreibung: Einflüsse von Wortform, Muttersprache, Lesealter, Legasthenie und lautem versus leisem Lesen [The function of capital and small letters: Influences of word form, mother tongue, reading age, dyslexia, and loud versus silent reading]. In C. Stetter (Ed.), Zu einer Theorie der Orthographie: Interdisziplinäre Aspekte gegenwärtiger Schrift- und Orthographieforschung [A theory of orthography. Interdisciplinary aspects of present-day writing and orthography research] (pp. 1-33). Tübingen, Germany: Niemeyer. doi:10.1515/9783111372280.1
10. Bock, M., Augst, G., & Wegner, I. (1985). Groβ oder klein? Zur Funktion des Wortanfangs für den gegenwärtigen Leser [Capital or small? The function of the beginning of a word for the present-day reader]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 17, 191-209.
11. Bock, M., Hagenschneider, K., & Schweer, A. (1989). Zur Funktion der Groβ- und Kleinschreibung beim Lesen deutscher, englischer und niederländischer Texte [The function of capital and small letters during reading of German, English, and Dutch texts]. In P. Eisenberg & H. Günther (Eds.), Schriftsystem und Orthographie [Writing system and orthography] (pp. 23-55). Tübingen, Germany: Niemeyer. doi:10.1515/ 9783111372266.23
12. Bolker, B., Kliegl, R., & Fournier, D. (2011). Reimplementation of Zhang etal.2011.Retrievedfromhttp://glmm.wdfiles.com/local--files/examples/ Zhang_reanalysis.pdf
13. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433-436. doi:10.1163/156856897X00357
14. Cornelissen, F. W., Peters, E., & Palmer, J. (2002). The Eyelink Toolbox: Eye tracking with MATLAB and the Psychophysics Toolbox. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34, 613- 617. doi: 10.3758/BF03195489
15. Cui, L., Yan, G., Bai, X., Hyönä, J., Wang, S., & Liversedge, S. P. (2013). Processing of compound-word characters in reading Chinese: An eyemovement- contingent display change study. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 527-547. doi:10.1080/17470218.2012 .667423
16. Dambacher, M., Dimigen, O., Braun, M., Wille, K., Jacobs, A. M., & Kliegl, R. (2012). Stimulus onset asynchrony and the timeline of word recognition: Event-related potentials during sentence reading, Neuropsychologia, 50, 1852-1870. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.04.011
17. Deutsch, A., Frost, R., Pelleg, S., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (2003). Early morphological effects in reading: Evidence from parafoveal preview benefit in Hebrew. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 415-422. doi:10.3758/BF03196500
18. Deutsch, A., Frost, R., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (2005). Morphological parafoveal preview benefit effects in reading: Evidence from Hebrew. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 341-371. doi:10.1080/ 01690960444000115
19. Dimigen, O., Kliegl, R., & Sommer, W. (2012). Trans-saccadic parafoveal preview benefits in fluent reading: A study with fixation-related brain potentials. NeuroImage, 62, 381-393. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012 .04.006
20. Drieghe, D. (2008). Foveal processing and word skipping during reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 856-860. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.4 .856
21. Drieghe, D., Rayner, K., & 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
22. Engbert, R., & Kliegl, R. (2003). Microsaccades uncover the orientation of covert attention. Vision Research, 43, 1035-1045. doi:10.1016/S0042- 6989(03)00084-1
23. Engbert, R., & Kliegl, R. (2011). Parallel graded attention models of reading. In S. P. Liversedge, I. D. Gilchrist, & S. Everling (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of eye movements (pp. 787-800). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199539789.013 .0043
24. Engbert, R., Longtin, A., & Kliegl, R. (2002). A dynamical model of saccade generation in reading based on spatially distributed lexical processing. Vision Research, 42, 621- 636. doi:10.1016/S0042- 6989(01)00301-7
25. Engbert, R., & Mergenthaler, K. (2006). Microsaccades are triggered by low retinal slip. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103, 7192-7197. doi:10.1073/pnas .0509557103
26. 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
27. Fournier, D. A., Skaug, H. J., Ancheta, J., Ianelli, J., Magnusson, A., Maunder, M. N.,. . Sibert, J. (2012). AD Model Builder: Using automatic differentiation for statistical inference of highly parameterized complex nonlinear models. Optimization Methods and Software, 27, 233-249. doi:10.1080/10556788.2011.597854
28. Frith, U., Wimmer, H., & Landerl, K. (1998). Differences in phonological recoding in German- and English-speaking children: Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 31-54. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0201_2
29. Frost, R. (2012). Towards a universal model of reading. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 263-279. doi:10.1017/S0140525X11001841
30. Gelman, A., Su, Y.-S., Yajima, M., Hill, J., Pittau, M. G., Kerman, J., & Zheng, T. (2012). arm: Data analysis using regression and multilevel/ hierarchical models (R package Version 1.5-04) [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://cran.r-project.org/packagearm
31. Geyken, A. (2007). The DWDS corpus: A reference corpus for the German language of the twentieth century. In C. Fellbaum (Ed.), Idioms and collocations: Corpus-based linguistic and lexicographic studies (pp. 23-40). London, England: Continuum.
32. Gfroerer, S., Günther, H., & Bock, M. (1989). Augenbewegungen und Substantivgroschreibung: Eine Pilotstudie [Eye movements and noun capitalization: A pilot study]. In P. Eisenberg & H. Günther (Eds.), Schriftsystem und Orthographie [Writing system and orthography] (pp. 111-135). Tübingen, Germany: Niemeyer. doi:10.1515/9783111372266 .111
33. Ghahghaei, S., Linnell, K. J., Fischer, M. H., Dubey, A., & Davis, R. (2013). Effects of load on the time course of attentional engagement, disengagement, and orienting in reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 453-470. doi:10.1080/17470218.2011.635795
34. 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 [dlexDB: A lexical database for the psychological and linguistic research]. Psychologische Rundschau, 62, 10-20. doi:10.1026/0033-3042/a000029
35. Heister, J., Würzner, K.-M., & Kliegl, R. (2012). Analysing large datasets of eye movements during reading. In J. S. Adelman (Ed.), Visual word recognition: Meaning and context, individuals and development (pp. 102-130). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
36. Henderson, J. M., & 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, 417-429. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.16 .3.417
37. Hohenstein, S., & Kliegl, R. (in press). Eye movements reveal interplay between noun capitalization and word class during reading. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz, & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings ofthe 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
38. Hohenstein, S., Laubrock, J., & Kliegl, R. (2010). Semantic preview benefit in eye movements during reading: A parafoveal fast-priming study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 1150-1170. doi:10.1037/a0020233
39. Hoosain, R. (1991). Psycholinguistic implications for linguistic relativity: A case study of Chinese. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
40. Hyönä, J. (1995). Do irregular letter combinations attract readers' attention? Evidence from fixation locations in words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 68-81. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.21.1.68
41. Hyönä, J., & Häikiö, T. (2005). Is emotional content obtained from parafoveal words during reading? An eye movement analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 46, 475-483. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450 .2005.00479.x
42. Inhoff, A. W. (1989a). 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
43. Inhoff, A. W. (1989b). Parafoveal processing of words and saccade computation during eye fixations in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 544 -555. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.15.3.544
44. Inhoff, A. W., & Radach, R. (1998). Definition and computation of oculomotor measures in the study of cognitive processes. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 29-53). Oxford, England: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978-008043361-5/50003-1
45. 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
46. Jacobs, A. M., Nuerk, H. C., Graf, R., Braun, M., & Nazir, T. A. (2008). The initial capitalization superiority effect in German: Evidence for a perceptual frequency variant of the orthographic cue hypothesis of visual word recognition. Psychological Research, 72, 657-665. doi:10.1007/ s00426-008-0168-0
47. Jonides, J., & 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
48. Jordan, T. R., McGowan, V. A., & Paterson, K. B. (2012). Reading with a filtered fovea: The influence of visual quality at the point of fixation during reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 1078-1084. doi: 10.3758/s13423-012-0307-x
49. Kambe, G. (2004). Parafoveal processing of prefixed words during eye fixations in reading: Evidence against morphological influences on parafoveal preprocessing. Perception & Psychophysics, 66, 279-292. doi:10.3758/BF03194879
50. Kennedy, A. (2008). Parafoveal-on-foveal effects are not an artifact of mislocated saccades. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 2, 1-10.
51. Kennedy, A., Pynte, J., Murray, W. S., & Paul, S.-A. (2013). Frequency and predictability effects in the Dundee corpus: An eye movement analysis. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 601-618. doi:10.1080/17470218.2012.676054
52. Kennison, S. M., & 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, 68-81. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.21 .1.68
53. Kim, Y.-S., Radach, R., & Vorstius, C. (2012). Eye movements and parafoveal processing during reading in Korean. Reading and Writing, 25, 1053-1078. doi:10.1007/s11145-011-9349-0
54. Kliegl, R., Hohenstein, S., Yan, M., & McDonald, S. A. (2013). How preview space/time translates into preview cost/benefit for fixation durations during reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 581-600. doi:10.1080/17470218.2012.658073
55. Kliegl, R., Masson, M. E. J., & Richter, E. M. (2010). A linear mixed model analysis of masked repetition priming. Visual Cognition, 18, 655-681. doi:10.1080/13506280902986058
56. 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
57. Kliegl, R., Wei, P., Dambacher, M., Yan, M., & 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, 1, 238. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00238
58. Laubrock, J., & Hohenstein, S. (2012). Orthographic consistency and parafoveal preview benefit: A resource-sharing account of language differences in processing of phonological and semantic codes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 292-293. doi:10.1017/ S0140525X12000209
59. Legge, G. E., Ahn, S. J., Klitz, T. S., & Luebker, A. (1997). Psychophysics of reading-XVI. The visual span in normal and low vision. Vision Research, 37, 1999-2010. doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(97)00017-5
60. Legge, G. E., Parish, D. H., Luebker, A., & Wurm, L. H. (1990). Psychophysics of reading. XI. Comparing color contrast and luminance contrast. Journal of the Optical Society of America A: Optics, Image Science, and Vision, 7, 2002-2010. doi:10.1364/JOSAA.7.002002
61. Legge, G. E., Rubin, G. S., & Luebker, A. (1987). Psychophysics of reading-V. The role of contrast in normal vision. Vision Research, 27, 1165-1177. doi:10.1016/0042-6989(87)90028-9
62. Lima, S. D. (1987). Morphological analysis in sentence reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 84-99. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(87)90064-7
63. McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376-390. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.2.376
64. McConkie, G. W., Kerr, P. W., Reddix, M. D., & Zola, D. (1988). Eye movement control during reading: I. The location of initial eye fixations on words. Vision Research, 28, 1107-1118. doi:10.1016/0042- 6989(88)90137-X
65. McConkie, G. W., & Rayner, K. (1975). The span of the effective stimulus during a fixation in reading. Perception & Psychophysics, 17, 578-586. doi:10.3758/BF03203972
66. 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
67. McNamara, T. P. (2005). Semantic priming: Perspectives from memory and word recognition. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
68. Meuter, R. F. I., & Allport, A. (1999). Bilingual language switching in naming: Asymmetrical costs of language selection. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 25-40. doi:10.1006/jmla.1998.2602
69. Michelson, A. A. (1927). Studies in optics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
70. Miellet, S., & Sparrow, L. (2004). Phonological codes are assembled before word fixation: Evidence from boundary paradigm in sentence reading. Brain and Language, 90, 299 -310. doi:10.1016/S0093- 934X(03)00442-5
71. Müsseler, J., Nisslein, M., & Koriat, A. (2005). German capitalization of nouns and the detection of letters in continuous text. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 143-158. doi:10.1037/h0087470
72. Nuthmann, A., Engbert, R., & Kliegl, R. (2005). Mislocated fixations during reading and the inverted optimal viewing position effect. Vision
73. Research,Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437-442. doi: 10.1163/156856897X00366
74. Plant, R. A., Hammond, N., & Turner, G. (2004). Self-validating presentation and response timing in cognitive paradigms: How and why?. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 291-303. doi:10.3758/BF03195575
75. Plummer, P., & Rayner, K. (2012). Effects of parafoveal word length and orthographic features on initial fixation landing positions in reading. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 950-963. doi:10.3758/ s13414-012-0286-z
76. Pollatsek, A., Lesch, M., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1992). Phonological codes are used in integrating information across saccades in word identification and reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 148-162. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.18 .1.148
77. Pollatsek, A., Rayner, K., & Balota, D. A. (1986). Inferences about eye movement control from the perceptual span in reading. Perception & Psychophysics, 40, 123-130. doi:10.3758/BF03208192
78. Pynte, J., Kennedy, A., & Ducrot, S. (2004). The influence of parafoveal typographical errors on eye movements in reading. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 178-202. doi:10.1080/09541440340000169
79. Radach, R., Inhoff, A., & Heller, D. (2004). Orthographic regularity gradually modulates saccade amplitude in reading. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 27-51. doi:10.1080/09541440340000222
80. Radach, R., Reilly, R., & Inhoff, A. W. (2007). Models of oculomotor control in reading: Towards a theoretical foundation of current debates. In R. P. G. van Gompel, M. H. Fischer, & R. L. Hill (Eds.), Eye movements: A window on mind and brain (pp. 237-269). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978-008044980-7/50013-6
81. Rayner, K. (1975). The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 65-81. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(75)90005-5
82. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372- 422. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372
83. 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
84. Rayner, K., Balota, D. A., Pollatsek A.(1986). Against parafoveal semantic preprocessing during eye fixations in reading. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 40, 473-483. doi:10.1037/h0080111
85. Rayner, K., & Bertera, J. H. (1979). Reading without a fovea. Science, 206, 468-469. doi:10.1126/science.504987
86. Rayner, K., McConkie, G. W., & Zola, D. (1980). Integrating information across eye movements. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 206-226. doi:10 .1016/0010-0285(80)90009-2
87. 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. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.136.3 .520
88. R Development Core Team. (2012). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
89. Reichle, E. (2011). Serial attention models of reading. In S. P. Liversedge, I. D. Gilchrist, & S. Everling (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of eye movements (pp. 767-786). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199539789.013.0042
90. 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
91. 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. doi:10.1017/ S0140525X03000104
92. 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
93. Reingold, E. M., & Rayner, K. (2006). Examining the word identification stages hypothesized by the E-Z Reader model. Psychological Science, 17, 742-746. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01775.x
94. Schad, D. J., & Engbert, R. (2012). The zoom lens of attention: Simulating shuffled versus normal text reading using the SWIFT model. Visual Cognition, 20, 391-421. doi:10.1080/13506285.2012.670143
95. Schielzeth, H., & Forstmeier, W. (2009). Conclusions beyond support: Overconfident estimates in mixed models. Behavioral Ecology, 20, 416-420. doi:10.1093/beheco/arn145
96. Schotter, E. R., Angele, B., & Rayner, K. (2012). Parafoveal processing in reading. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 5-35. doi:10.3758/ s13414-011-0219-2
97. Schroyens, W., Vitu, E., Brysbaert, M., & d'Ydewalle, G. (1999). Eye movement control during reading: Foveal load and parafoveal processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A. Human Experimental Psychology, 52, 1021-1046. doi:10.1080/ 027249899390909
98. Sereno, S. C., & Rayner, K. (1992). Fast priming during eye fixations in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 173-184. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.18.1.173
99. Skaug, H., Fournier, D., Nielsen, A., Magnusson, A., & Bolker, B. (2012). glmmADMB: Generalized linear mixed models using AD Model Builder (R package Version 0.7.2.12) [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://r-forge.r-project.org/projects/glmmadmb/
100. Slattery, T. J., Angele, B., & 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
101. Soares, C., & Grosjean, F. (1984). Bilinguals in a monolingual and a bilingual speech mode: The effect on lexical access. Memory & Cognition, 12, 380-386. doi:10.3758/BF03198298
102. Starr, M., & Inhoff, A. (2004). Attention allocation to the right and left of a fixated word: Use of orthographic information from multiple words during reading. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 203- 225. doi:10.1080/09541440340000150
103. Starr, M. S., & Rayner, K. (2001). Eye movements during reading: Some current controversies. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 156-163. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01619-3
104. Strasburger, H., Rentschler, I., & Jüttner, M. (2011). Peripheral vision and pattern recognition: A review. Journal of Vision, 11, 13. doi:10.1167/ 11.5.13
105. Tsai, J.-L., Kliegl, R., & Yan, M. (2012). Parafoveal semantic information extraction in traditional Chinese reading. Acta Psychologica, 141, 17- 23. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.06.004
106. Underwood, G., Binns, A., & Walker, S. (2000). Attentional demands on the processing of neighbouring words. In A. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller, & J. Pynte (Eds.), Reading as a perceptual process (pp. 247- 268). Oxford, England: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978-008043642-5/ 50013-9
107. van de Pol, M. V., & Wright, J. (2009). A simple method for distinguishing within- versus between-subject effects using mixed models. Animal Behaviour, 77, 753-758. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.11.006
108. Vonk, W., Radach, R., & van Rijn, H. (2000). Eye guidance and the saliency of word beginnings in reading text. In A. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller, & J. Pynte (Eds.), Reading as a perceptual process (pp. 269-299). Oxford, England: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978-008043642-5/ 50014-0
109. Vorberg, D., Mattler, U., Heinecke, A., Schmidt, T., & Schwarzbach, J. (2003). Different time courses for visual perception and action priming. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100, 6275-6280. doi:10.1073/pnas.0931489100
110. Wang, C.-A., & Inhoff, A. W. (2010). The influence of visual contrast and case changes on parafoveal preview benefits during reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 805- 817. doi:10.1080/ 17470210903147494
111. White, S. J. (2008). Eye movement control during reading: Effects of word frequency and orthographic familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 205-223. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.34.1.205
112. White, S. J., Bertram, R., & Hyönä, J. (2008). Semantic processing of previews within compound words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 988-993. doi:10.1037/0278- 7393.34.4.988
113. White, S. J., & Liversedge, S. P. (2004). Orthographic familiarity influences initial eye fixation positions in reading. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 52-78. doi:10.1080/09541440340000204
114. White, S. J., & Liversedge, S. P. (2006a). Foveal processing difficulty does not modulate non-foveal orthographic influences on fixation positions. Vision Research, 46, 426-437. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2005.07.006
115. White, S. J., & Liversedge, S. P. (2006b). Linguistic and non-linguistic influences on the eyes landing positions during reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 760 -782. doi:10.1080/ 02724980543000024
116. White, S. J., Rayner, K., & Liversedge, S. P. (2005). Eye movements and the modulation of parafoveal processing by foveal processing difficulty: A reexamination. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 891-896. doi: 10.3758/BF03196782
117. White, S. J., & Staub, A. (2012). The distribution of fixation durations during reading: Effects of stimulus quality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 603-617. doi: 10.1037/a0025338
118. Wickham, H. (2009). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New York, NY: Springer.
119. Yan, M., Richter, E. M., Shu, H., & 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
120. Yan, M., Risse, S., Zhou, X., & Kliegl, R. (2012). Preview fixation duration modulates identical and semantic preview benefit in Chinese reading. Reading and Writing, 25, 1093-1111. doi:10.1007/s11145-010- 9274-7
121. Yan, M., Zhou, W., Shu, H., & Kliegl, R. (2012). Lexical and sublexical semantic preview benefits in Chinese reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 1069-1075. doi: 10.1037/a0026935
122. Yang, J., Wang, S., Tong, X., & Rayner, K. (2012). Semantic and plausibility effects on preview benefit during eye fixations in Chinese reading. Reading and Writing, 25, 1031-1052. doi:10.1007/s11145-010-9281-8
123. Yu, B., Zhang, W., Jing, Q., Peng, R., Zhang, G., & Simon, H. A. (1985). STM capacity for Chinese and English language materials. Memory & Cognition, 13, 202-207. doi:10.3758/BF03197682
124. Zhang, H., Lu, N., Feng, C., Thurston, S. W., Xia, Y., Zhu, L., & Tu, X. M. (2011). On fitting generalized linear mixed-effects models for binary responses using different statistical packages. Statistics in Medicine, 30, 2562-2572. doi:10.1002/sim.4265