The influence of visual contrast and case changes on parafoveal preview benefits during reading

Reingold and Rayner (2006) showed that the visual contrast of a fixated target word influenced its viewing duration, but not the viewing of the next (posttarget) word in the text that was shown in regular contrast. Configurational target changes, by contrast, influenced target and posttarget viewing. The current study examined whether this effect pattern can be attributed to differential processing of the posttarget word during target viewing. A boundary paradigm (Rayner, 1975) was used to provide an informative or uninformative posttarget preview and to reveal the word when it was fixated. Consistent with the earlier study, more time was spent viewing the target when its visual contrast was low and its configuration unfamiliar. Critically, target contrast had no effect on the acquisition of useful information from a posttarget preview, but an unfamiliar target configuration diminished the usefulness of an informative posttarget preview. These findings are consistent with Reingold and Rayner's (2006) claim that saccade programming and attention shifting during reading can be controlled by functionally distinct word recognition processes.

[1]  Alexander Pollatsek,et al.  Immediate and delayed effects of word frequency and word length on eye movements in reading: a reversed delayed effect of word length. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[2]  K. Rayner,et al.  Examining the Word Identification Stages Hypothesized by the E-Z Reader Model , 2006, Psychological science.

[3]  Ralf Engbert,et al.  A dynamical model of saccade generation in reading based on spatially distributed lexical processing , 2002, Vision Research.

[4]  Erik D. Reichle,et al.  The E-Z Reader model of eye-movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models , 2003, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[5]  Ronan G. Reilly,et al.  Chapter 21 – Foundations of an Interactive Activation Model of Eye Movement Control in Reading , 2003 .

[6]  Alexander Pollatsek,et al.  E–Z Reader: A cognitive-control, serial-attention model of eye-movement behavior during reading , 2006, Cognitive Systems Research.

[7]  Robin K. Morris,et al.  Phonological codes are used in integrating information across saccades in word identification and reading. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[8]  R. E. Morrison,et al.  Manipulation of stimulus onset delay in reading: evidence for parallel programming of saccades. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[9]  K. Rayner,et al.  Eye movements during reading: some current controversies , 2001, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[10]  Ronan G. Reilly,et al.  Models of oculomotor control in reading , 2007 .

[11]  A. Inhoff,et al.  Chapter 2 – Definition and Computation of Oculomotor Measures in the Study of Cognitive Processes , 1998 .

[12]  K. Rayner.  The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[13]  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.

[14]  Erik D. Reichle,et al.  Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. , 1998, Psychological review.

[15]  Alexander Pollatsek,et al.  Encoding multiple words simultaneously in reading is implausible , 2009, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[16]  Denis Drieghe,et al.  Foveal processing and word skipping during reading , 2008, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[17]  W. Nelson Francis,et al.  FREQUENCY ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH USAGE: LEXICON AND GRAMMAR , 1983 .

[18]  Erik D. Reichle,et al.  Tests of the E-Z Reader model: Exploring the interface between cognition and eye-movement control , 2006, Cognitive Psychology.

[19]  Reinhold Kliegl,et al.  SWIFT: a dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. , 2005, Psychological review.

[20]  Sarah J. White,et al.  Eye movements and the modulation of parafoveal processing by foveal processing difficulty: A reexamination , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[21]  K. Rayner.  Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. , 1998, Psychological bulletin.

[22]  Ronan G. Reilly,et al.  Some empirical tests of an interactive activation model of eye movement control in reading , 2006, Cognitive Systems Research.

[23]  R. Burchfield.  Frequency Analysis of English Usage: Lexicon and Grammar. By W. Nelson Francis and Henry Kučera with the assistance of Andrew W. Mackie. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 1982. x + 561 , 1985 .

[24]  Keith Rayner,et al.  Do readers obtain preview benefit from word N + 2? A test of serial attention shift versus distributed lexical processing models of eye movement control in reading. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.