Meaning-based attentional guidance as a function of foveal and task-related cognitive loads

ABSTRACT The depth of parafoveal word processing depends on the amount of cognitive resources available. Whether this principle applies to the parafoveal semantic processing of multiple words remains, however, controversial. This study therefore aimed at testing the impact of the amount of cognitive resources available on the parafoveal semantic processing of words, by manipulating the foveal and task-related cognitive loads. Participants searched for words in displays of three semantically related or unrelated words, one of which was presented in the centre of the screen and two within the parafovea. The nature of the task and the characteristics of the centred word were manipulated to vary respectively the load associated to the task and to the foveal load. Analyses revealed more first saccades toward the parafoveal semantic distractors when both loads were low. These results indicate that fast parafoveal semantic word processing is constrained by the availability of cognitive resources.

[1]  J. Rouet,et al.  Task-dependent sensitisation of perceptual and semantic processing during visual search for words , 2014 .

[2]  R. Desimone,et al.  Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. , 1995, Annual review of neuroscience.

[3]  K L Petre,et al.  Reading with Eccentric Fixation is Faster in Inferior Visual Field Than in Left Visual Field , 2000, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[4]  Gordon E. Legge,et al.  Psychophysics of reading. XVIII. The effect of print size on reading speed in normal peripheral vision , 1998, Vision Research.

[5]  Suiping Wang,et al.  Integration of Sentence-Level Semantic Information in Parafovea: Evidence from the RSVP-Flanker Paradigm , 2015, PloS one.

[6]  Kara D. Federmeier,et al.  Out of the corner of my eye: Foveal semantic load modulates parafoveal processing in reading. , 2016, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  Gregory J Zelinsky,et al.  More target features in visual working memory leads to poorer search guidance: evidence from contralateral delay activity. , 2014, Journal of vision.

[8]  L. Chelazzi,et al.  Associative knowledge controls deployment of visual selective attention , 2003, Nature Neuroscience.

[9]  M. Kutas,et al.  An electrophysiological analysis of contextual and temporal constraints on parafoveal word processing. , 2013, Psychophysiology.

[10]  Jeremy M. Wolfe,et al.  Guided Search 4.0: Current Progress With a Model of Visual Search , 2007, Integrated Models of Cognitive Systems.

[11]  Kara D. Federmeier,et al.  Getting ahead of yourself: Parafoveal word expectancy modulates the N400 during sentence reading , 2017, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.

[12]  Gustavo Deco,et al.  The neurodynamics of visual search , 2006 .

[13]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Early, involuntary top-down guidance of attention from working memory. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[14]  J. Theeuwes,et al.  Feature-based memory-driven attentional capture: visual working memory content affects visual attention. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[15]  Patrick Cavanagh,et al.  Semantic Priming From Crowded Words , 2012, Psychological science.

[16]  R. Kliegl,et al.  Readers of Chinese extract semantic information from parafoveal words , 2009, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[17]  W. Sommer,et al.  Parafoveal processing in reading Chinese sentences: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. , 2015, Psychophysiology.

[18]  Harold Pashler,et al.  Working memory and the guidance of visual attention: Consonance-driven orienting , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[19]  Reinhold Kliegl,et al.  Trans-saccadic parafoveal preview benefits in fluent reading: A study with fixation-related brain potentials , 2012, NeuroImage.

[20]  Michael C Hout,et al.  Target templates: the precision of mental representations affects attentional guidance and decision-making in visual search , 2015, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[21]  H. Barber,et al.  Semantic parafoveal-on-foveal effects and preview benefits in reading: Evidence from Fixation Related Potentials , 2016, Brain and Language.

[22]  F. E. Satterthwaite.  An approximate distribution of estimates of variance components. , 1946, Biometrics.

[23]  Naomi M. Kenner,et al.  How fast can you change your mind? The speed of top-down guidance in visual search , 2004, Vision Research.

[24]  J. Findlay,et al.  Eye guidance and visual search , 1998 .

[25]  Eva Belke,et al.  Early activation of object names in visual search , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[26]  Keith Rayner,et al.  On the Processing of Meaning from Parafoveal Vision During Eye Fixations in Reading , 2003 .

[27]  M. Brysbaert,et al.  Eye Movement Control during Reading: Foveal Load and Parafoveal Processing , 1999, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[28]  Falk Huettig,et al.  The tug of war between phonological, semantic and shape information in language-mediated visual search , 2007 .

[29]  Satterthwaite Fe.  An approximate distribution of estimates of variance components. , 1946 .

[30]  Keith Rayner,et al.  Lack of semantic parafoveal preview benefit in reading revisited , 2014, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[31]  J. Rouet,et al.  Orthographic versus semantic matching in visual search for words within lists. , 2012, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[32]  Manuel Perea,et al.  EsPal: One-stop shopping for Spanish word properties , 2013, Behavior Research Methods.

[33]  Wei Zhou,et al.  Lexical and sublexical semantic preview benefits in Chinese reading. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[34]  K. Rayner.  The 35th Sir Frederick Bartlett Lecture: Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search , 2009, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[35]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Stressing the mind: The effect of cognitive load and articulatory suppression on attentional guidance from working memory , 2008, Perception & psychophysics.

[36]  N. Lavie,et al.  The role of working memory in attentional capture , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[37]  Ingrid Hsieh-Yee.  Research on Web Search Behavior. , 2001 .

[38]  David Soto,et al.  Automatic guidance of visual attention from verbal working memory. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[39]  Susana T. L. Chung.  Enhancing visual performance for people with central vision loss. , 2009, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[40]  J. Henderson,et al.  Effects of foveal processing difficulty on the perceptual span in reading: implications for attention and eye movement control. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[41]  Antje S. Meyer,et al.  Electrophysiological Evidence of Semantic Interference in Visual Search , 2010, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[42]  Sally Andrews,et al.  Parafoveal preview benefit is modulated by the precision of skilled readers' lexical representations. , 2015, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[43]  Elizabeth R Schotter,et al.  Synonyms Provide Semantic Preview Benefit in English. , 2013, Journal of memory and language.

[44]  Jean-François Rouet,et al.  The Skills of Document Use: From Text Comprehension to Web-Based Learning , 2006 .

[45]  P. Downing,et al.  Interactions Between Visual Working Memory and Selective Attention , 2000, Psychological science.

[46]  Reinhold Kliegl,et al.  Semantic preview benefit during reading. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[47]  G. Zelinsky.  A theory of eye movements during target acquisition. , 2008, Psychological review.

[48]  Nicolas Vibert,et al.  Task-dependent modulation of word processing mechanisms during modified visual search tasks , 2016, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[49]  M. Kutas,et al.  Parafoveal N400 effect during sentence reading , 2010, Neuroscience Letters.

[50]  G. Legge,et al.  Is word recognition different in central and peripheral vision? , 2003, Vision Research.

[51]  Reinhold Kliegl,et al.  Semantic preview benefit in eye movements during reading: A parafoveal fast-priming study. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[52]  L J Williams,et al.  Tunnel vision or general interference? Cognitive load and attentional bias are both important. , 1988, The American journal of psychology.

[53]  S. Hochstein,et al.  Comparing eye movements to detected vs. undetected target stimuli in an Identity Search task. , 2009, Journal of vision.