1,721,073 research outputs found
Lack of semantic parafoveal preview benefit in reading revisited
No full textIn contrast to earlier research, evidence for semantic preview benefit in reading has been reported by Hohenstein and Kliegl (Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 166–190, 2013) in an alphabetic writing system; they also implied that prior demonstrations of lack of a semantic preview benefit needed to be reexamined. In the present article, we report a rather direct replication of an experiment reported by Rayner, Balota, and Pollatsek (Canadian Journal of Psychology, 40, 473–483, 1986). Using the gaze-contingent boundary paradigm, subjects read sentences that contained a target word (razor), but different preview words were initially presented in the sentence. The preview was identical to the target word (i.e., razor), semantically related to the target word (i.e., blade), semantically unrelated to the target word (i.e., sweet), or a visually similar nonword (i.e., razar). When the reader’s eyes crossed an invisible boundary location just to the left of the target word location, the preview changed to the target word. Like Rayner et al. (Canadian Journal of Psychology, 40, 473–483, 1986), we found that fixations on the target word were significantly shorter in the identical condition than in the unrelated condition, which did not differ from the semantically related condition; when an orthographically similar preview had been initially present in the sentence, fixations were shorter than when a semantically unrelated preview had been present. Thus, the present experiment replicates the earlier data reported by Rayner et al. (Canadian Journal of Psychology, 40, 473–483, 1986), indicating evidence for an orthographic preview benefit but a lack of semantic preview benefit in reading English
Eye movements and word skipping during reading revisited
Full text linkTwo experiments examined word skipping in reading. In Experiment 1, skipping rates were higher for a preview of a predictable word than for a visually similar nonword, indicating full recognition in parafoveal vision. In Experiment 2, foveal load was manipulated by varying the frequency of the word preceding either a 3-letter target word or a misspelled preview. There was again a higher skipping rate for a correct preview, and a lower skipping rate when there was a high foveal load, but there was no interaction, and the pattern of effects in fixation times was the same as in the skipping data. Experiment 2 also showed significant skipping of nonwords similar to the target word, indicating skipping based on partial information
Eye movements in reading versus nonreading tasks: Using E-Z Reader to understand the role of word/stimulus familiarity
No full textIn this article, we extend our previous work (Reichle, Pollatsek, & Rayner, 2012) using the principles of the E-Z Reader model to examine the factors that determine when and where the eyes move in both reading and non-reading tasks, and in particular the role that word/stimulus familiarity plays in determining when the eyes move from one word/stimulus to the next. In doing this, we first provide a brief overview of E-Z Reader, including its assumption that word familiarity is the "engine" driving eye movements during reading. We then review the theoretical considerations that motivated this assumption, as well as recent empirical evidence supporting its validity. We also report the results of three new simulations that were intended to demonstrate the utility of the familiarity check in three tasks: (1) reading; (2) searching for a target word in embedded in text; and (3) searching for the letter O in linear arrays of Landolt Cs. The results of these simulations suggest that the familiarity check always improves task efficiency by speeding its rate of performance. We provide several arguments as to why this conclusion is not likely to be true for the two non-reading tasks, and in the final section of the paper, we provide a fourth simulation to test the hypothesis that problems associated with the mis-identification of words may also curtail the too liberal use of word familiarity
Using E-Z Reader to simulate eye movements in nonreading tasks: a unified framework for understanding the eye–mind link
No full textNonreading tasks that share some (but not all) of the task demands of reading have often been used to make inferences about how cognition influences when the eyes move during reading. In this article, we use variants of the E-Z Reader model of eye-movement control in reading to simulate eye-movement behavior in several of these tasks, including z-string reading, target-word search, and visual search of Landolt Cs arranged in both linear and circular arrays. These simulations demonstrate that a single computational framework is sufficient to simulate eye movements in both reading and nonreading tasks but also suggest that there are task-specific differences in both saccadic targeting (i.e., decisions about where to move the eyes) and the coupling between saccadic programming and the movement of attention (i.e., decisions about when to move the eyes). These findings suggest that some aspects of the eye-mind link are flexible and can be configured in a manner that supports efficient task performance
Models of the reading process
No full textReading is a complex skill involving the orchestration of a number of components. Researchers often talk about a "model of reading" when talking about only one aspect of the reading process (for example, models of word identification are often referred to as "models of reading"). Here, we review prominent models that are designed to account for (1) word identification, (2) syntactic parsing, (3) discourse representations, and (4) how certain aspects of language processing (e.g., word identification), in conjunction with other constraints (e g., limited visual acuity, saccadic error, etc.), guide readers' eyes. Unfortunately, it is the case that these various models addressing specific aspects of the reading process seldom make contact with models dealing with other aspects of reading. Thus, for example, the models of word identification seldom make contact with models of eye movement control, and vice versa. While this may be unfortunate in some ways, it is quite understandable in other ways because reading itself is a very complex process. We discuss prototypical models of aspects of the reading process in the order mentioned above. We do not review all possible models, but rather focus on those we view as being representative and most highly recognized
Mislocated fixations can account for parafoveal-on-foveal effects in eye movements during reading
No full textContrasting predictions of serial and parallel views on the processing of foveal and parafoveal information during reading were tested. A high-frequency adjective (young) was followed by either a high-frequency wordn (child) or a low-frequency wordn (tenor), which in turn was followed by either a correct (performing) or an orthographic illegal wordn + 1 (pxvforming) as a parafoveal preview. A limited parafoveal-on-foveal effect was observed: There were inflated fixation times on wordn when the preview of wordn + 1 was orthographically illegal. However, this parafoveal-on-foveal effect was (a) independent of the frequency of wordn, (b) restricted to those instances when the eyes were very close to wordn + 1, and (c) associated with relatively long prior saccades. These observations are all compatible with a mislocated fixation account in which parafoveal-on-foveal effects result from saccadic undershoots of wordn + 1 and with a serial model of eye movement control during reading
Eye movements and the modulation of parafoveal processing by foveal processing difficulty: a re-examination
Full text linkHenderson and Ferreira (1990) found that foveal load (manipulated via word frequency) modulates parafoveal processing, thereby affecting the amount of preview benefit obtained from the word to the right of fixation. The present experiment used the eye-contingent boundary paradigm and, consistent with Henderson and Ferreira, showed that foveal load modulated preview benefit for participants who were not aware of the display changes during reading. Also, for these participants, foveal load modulated preview benefit regardless of fixation durations on the foveal word. For participants who were aware of the display change, preview benefits occurred regardless of foveal processing difficulty. These results have important implications for understanding the way in which foveal load influences parafoveal processing during readin
The influence of parafoveal word length and contextual constraint on fixation durations and word skipping in reading
No full textThe present study examined the relationship between the predictability of words within a sentence and the availability of parafoveal word length information, on when and where the eyes move in reading. Predictability influenced first-pass reading times when parafoveal word length preview information was correct, but not when it was incorrect. Similarly, for saccades launched from near the target word (word n), predictability influenced the probability with which it was skipped only when the word length preview was correct. By contrast, for saccades launched farther away from word n, predictability influenced word skipping regardless of the parafoveal word length preview. Taken together, the data suggest that parafoveal word length preview and predictability can act as a joint constraint on the decision of when and where to move the eyes
Binocular coordination of the eyes during reading: word frequency and case alternation affect fixation duration but not fixation disparity.
No full textThis experiment investigated whether properties of the text being read affect binocular coordination of the eyes during reading. Readers' binocular eye movements were recorded while they read sentences that contained high- and low-frequency words. In addition, half of the sentences were presented in normal case, and half were presented in alternating case (i.e., AlTeRnAtInG cAsE). Past research has suggested that the visual system tolerates less binocular fixation disparity with alternating than with normal case (Heller & Radach, 1999). While both word frequency and alternating case produced large effects on fixation durations on the target word, neither manipulation affected the magnitude of fixation disparity. It is concluded that linguistic and visual properties of the text being read do not influence binocular coordination of the eyes during reading. Additional analyses also showed no difference in fixation disparity between reading and a nonlinguistic task. Implications of these results for split-fovea models of reading are discussed
Eye movements and non-canonical reading: comments on Kennedy and Pynte (2008)
No full textKennedy and Pynte [Kennedy, A., & Pynte, J. (2008). The consequences of violations to reading order: An eye movement analysis. Vision Research, 48, 2309–2320] presented data that they suggested pose problems for models of eye movement control in reading in which words are encoded serially. They focus on situations in which pairs of words are fixated out of order (i.e., the first word is skipped and the second fixated prior to a regression back to the first word). We strongly disagree with their claims and contest their arguments. We argue that their data set was obtained selectively and the events they believe are problematic do not occur frequently during reading. Furthermore, we do not consider that Kennedy and Pynte’s arguments pose serious difficulties for serial models of reading such as E-Z Reade
- …
