The effect of contextual constraint on parafoveal processing in reading

Journal of Memory and Language

Volumn 83, Issue , 2015, Pages 118-139

  Schotter, Elizabeth R ^a   Lee, Michelle ^a   Reiderman, Michael ^a   Rayner, Keith ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Contextual constraint; Eye movements; Preview benefit; Reading

Indexed keywords

EID: 84940191805     PISSN: 0749596X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2015.04.005     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Angele B., Laishley A.E., Rayner K., Liversedge S.P. The effect of high- and low-frequency previews and sentential fit on word skipping during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2014, 40:1181-1203.
2. Angele B., Rayner K. Processing the in the parafovea: Are articles skipped automatically?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2013, 39:649-662.
3. Baayen R.H., Davidson D.H., Bates D.M. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 2008, 390-412.
4. Balota D.A., Pollatsek A., Rayner K. The interaction of contextual constraints and parafoveal visual information in reading. Cognitive Psychology 1985, 17:364-390.
5. Barr D.J., Levy R., Scheepers C., Tily H.J. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 2013, 68:255-278.
6. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. M., & Walker, S. (2014). Lme4: Linear mixed-effect models using S4 classes (R package Ver. 1.1-7). Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
7. DeLong K.A., Troyer M., Kutas M. Pre-processing in sentence comprehension: Sensitivity to likely upcoming meaning and structure. Language and Linguistics Compass 2014, 8:631-645.
8. Drieghe D. Parafoveal-on-foveal effects on eye movements during reading. Oxford handbook on eye movements 2011, 839-855. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. S. Liversedge, I. Gilchrist, S. Everling (Eds.).
9. Drieghe D., Rayner K., Pollatsek A. Eye movements and word skipping during reading revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2005, 31:954-969.
10. Ehrlich S.F., Rayner K. Contextual effects on word perception and eye movements during reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 1981, 20:641-655.
11. Elman J.L. On the meaning of words and dinosaur bones: Lexical knowledge without a lexicon. Cognitive Science 2009, 33:547-582.
12. Engbert R., Nuthmann A., Richter E.M., Kliegl R. SWIFT: A dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. Psychological Review 2005, 112:777-813.
13. Hohenstein S., Kliegl R. Semantic preview benefit during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2014, 40:166-190.
14. Hohenstein S., Laubrock J., Kliegl R. Semantic preview benefit in eye movements during reading: A parafoveal fast-priming study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2010, 36:1150-1170.
15. Hyönä J. Effects of thematic and lexical priming on readers' eye movements. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 1993, 34:293-304.
16. Kliegl R., Grabner E., Rolfs M., Engbert R. Length, frequency, and predictability effects of words on eye movements in reading. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 2004, 16:262-284.
17. Kutas M., Hillyard S.A. Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature 1984, 307:161-163.
18. Laubrock J., Hohenstein S. Orthographic consistency and parafoveal preview benefit: A resource-sharing account of language differences in processing of phonological and semantic codes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2012, 35:292-293.
19. McClelland J.L., O'Regan J.K. Expectations increase the benefit derived from parafoveal visual information in reading words aloud. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1981, 7:634-644.
20. McClelland J.L., O'Regan J.K. On visual and contextual factors in reading: A reply to Rayner and Slowiaczek. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1981, 7:652-657.
21. Metusalem R., Kutas M., Urbach T.P., Hare M., McRae K., Elman J.L. Generalized event knowledge activation during online sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 2012, 66:545-567.
22. R Core Team (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R foundation for statistical computing. http://www.R-project.org/.
23. Rayner K. The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading. Cognitive Psychology 1975, 7:65-81.
24. Rayner K. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20years of research. Psychological Bulletin 1998, 124:372-422.
25. Rayner K. The Thirty Fifth Sir Frederick Bartlett Lecture: Eye movements and attention during reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2009, 62:1457-1506.
26. Rayner K., Balota D.A., Pollatsek A. Against parafoveal semantic processing during eye fixations in reading. Canadian Journal of Psychology 1986, 40:473-483.
27. Rayner K., Schotter E.R. Semantic preview benefit in reading English: The effect of initial letter capitalization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2014, 40:1617-1628.
28. Rayner K., Schotter E.R., Drieghe D. Lack of semantic parafoveal preview benefit in reading revisited. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2014, 21:1067-1072.
29. Rayner K., Slattery T.J., Drieghe D., Liversedge S.P. Eye movements and word skipping during reading: Effects of word length and predictability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2011, 37:514-528.
30. Rayner K., Slowiaczek M.L. Expectations and parafoveal information in reading: Comments on McClelland and O'Regan. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1981, 7:645-651.
31. Rayner K., Well A.D. Effects of contextual constraint on eye movements in reading: A further examination. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 1996, 3:504-509.
32. Reichle E.D., Pollatsek A., Fisher D.L., Rayner K. Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. Psychological Review 1998, 105:125-157.
33. Roland D., Yun H., Koenig J.P., Mauner G. Semantic similarity, predictability, and models of sentence processing. Cognition 2012, 122:267-279.
34. Schotter E.R. Synonyms provide semantic preview benefit in English. Journal of Memory and Language 2013, 69:619-633.
35. Schotter E.R., Angele B., Rayner K. Parafoveal processing in reading. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 2012, 74:5-35.
36. Schotter E.R., Reichle E.D., Rayner K. Rethinking parafoveal processing in reading: Serial attention models can account for semantic preview benefit and n+2 preview effects. Visual Cognition 2014, 22:309-333.
37. Smith N.J., Levy R. The effect of word predictability on reading time is logarithmic. Cognition 2013, 128:302-319.
38. Taylor W.L. "Cloze procedure": A new tool for measuring readability. Journalism Quarterly 1953, 30:415-433.
39. Yan M., Richter E.M., Shu H., Kliegl R. Readers of Chinese extract semantic information from parafoveal words. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2009, 16:561-566.
40. Yan M., Zhou W., Shu H., Kliegl R. Lexical and sublexical semantic preview benefits in Chinese reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2012, 38:1069-1075.
41. Yang J. Preview effects of plausibility and character order in reading Chinese transposed words: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Research in Reading 2013, 36:S18-S34.
42. Yang J., Wang S., Tong X., Rayner K. Semantic and plausibility effects on preview benefit during eye fixations in Chinese reading. Reading and Writing 2010, 25:1031-1052.
43. Zola D. Redundancy and word perception during reading. Perception & Psychophysics 1984, 36:277-284.