Rethinking parafoveal processing in reading: Serial-attention models can explain semantic preview benefit and N+2 preview effects

During reading, some information about the word to the right of fixation in the parafovea is typically acquired prior to that word being fixated. Although some degree parafoveal processing is uncontroversial, its precise nature and extent are unclear. For example, can it advance up to the level of semantic processing? Additionally, can it extend across more than two spatially adjacent words? Affirmative answers to either of these questions would seemingly be problematic for serial-attention models of eye-movement control in reading, which maintain that attention is allocated to only one word at a time (see Reichle, 2011). However, in this paper we report simulation results using one such model, E-Z Reader (Reichle, Pollatsek, Fisher, & Rayner, 1998), to examine the two preceding questions. These results suggest the existence of both semantic preview and N+2 preview effects, indicating that they are not incompatible with serial-attention models. We discuss the implications of these findings for models of eye-movement control in reading and provide a new theoretical framework for conceptualizing parafoveal processing during reading and its influence on eye movement behaviour.

[1]  Erik D. Reichle,et al.  Direct lexical control of eye movements in reading: Evidence from a survival analysis of fixation durations , 2012, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[3]  D. Balota,et al.  Against parafoveal semantic preprocessing during eye fixations in reading. , 1986, Canadian journal of psychology.

[4]  C. Clifton,et al.  Determinants of parafoveal preview benefit in high and low working memory capacity readers: implications for eye movement control. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[5]  Ralf Engbert,et al.  The zoom lens of attention: Simulating shuffled versus normal text reading using the SWIFT model , 2012, Visual cognition.

[6]  Erik D. Reichle,et al.  Using E-Z reader to model the effects of higher level language processing on eye movements during reading , 2009, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[7]  Erik D. Reichle,et al.  Using reinforcement learning to understand the emergence of "intelligent" eye-movement behavior during reading. , 2006, Psychological review.

[8]  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.

[9]  Jukka Hyönä,et al.  Do frequency characteristics of nonfixated words influence the processing of fixated words during reading? , 2004 .

[10]  Dario D. Salvucci An integrated model of eye movements and visual encoding , 2001, Cognitive Systems Research.

[11]  Alexander Pollatsek,et al.  The effects of frequency and predictability on eye fixations in reading: implications for the E-Z Reader model. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[12]  Suiping Wang,et al.  Is preview benefit from word n + 2 a common effect in reading Chinese? Evidence from eye movements , 2012, Reading and writing.

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

[14]  K. Rayner,et al.  Contextual effects on word perception and eye movements during reading , 1981 .

[15]  J. H. Bertera,et al.  The availability of useful information to the right of fixation in reading , 1982, Perception & psychophysics.

[16]  Keith Rayner,et al.  Parafoveal processing of word n + 2 during reading: do the preceding words matter? , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[17]  Reinhold Kliegl,et al.  Preview benefit and parafoveal-on-foveal effects from word n + 2. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[18]  Ralph Radach,et al.  Contextual constraint and N + 2 preview effects in reading , 2013, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[19]  Reinhold Kliegl,et al.  A Theoretical Analysis of the Perceptual Span based on SWIFT Simulations of the n + 2 Boundary Paradigm , 2014, Visual cognition.

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

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

[22]  D. Balota,et al.  The interaction of contextual constraints and parafoveal visual information in reading , 1985, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[24]  Erik D. Reichle,et al.  Serial-attention models of reading , 2011 .

[25]  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 .

[26]  Wilson L. Taylor,et al.  “Cloze Procedure”: A New Tool for Measuring Readability , 1953 .

[27]  Keith Rayner,et al.  Semantic preview benefit in reading English: The effect of initial letter capitalization. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[29]  Ralf Engbert,et al.  Length, frequency, and predictability effects of words on eye movements in reading , 2004 .

[30]  K. Rayner,et al.  Effects of contextual constraint on eye movements in reading: A further examination , 1996, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

[32]  James L. McClelland,et al.  A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. , 1989, Psychological review.

[33]  Eyal M. Reingold,et al.  Neurophysiological constraints on the eye-mind link , 2013, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

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

[35]  R. Kliegl,et al.  Adult age differences in the perceptual span during reading. , 2011, Psychology and aging.

[36]  Keith Rayner,et al.  Parafoveal processing in reading , 2011, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

[37]  Jinmian Yang,et al.  Preview effects of plausibility and character order in reading Chinese transposed words: evidence from eye movements , 2013 .

[38]  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.

[39]  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.

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

[41]  M Coltheart,et al.  DRC: a dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. , 2001, Psychological review.

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

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

[44]  Suiping Wang,et al.  Semantic and plausibility effects on preview benefit during eye fixations in Chinese reading , 2012, Reading and writing.

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

[46]  Reinhold Kliegl,et al.  Parallel graded attention models of reading , 2011 .

[47]  Alexander Pollatsek,et al.  Using E-Z Reader to simulate eye movements in nonreading tasks: a unified framework for understanding the eye-mind link. , 2012, Psychological review.

[48]  Reinhold Kliegl,et al.  Parafoveal processing in reading: Manipulating n+1 and n+2 previews simultaneously , 2008, Visual cognition.

[49]  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.

[50]  R. Levy,et al.  The utility of modelling word identification from visual input within models of eye movements in reading , 2012, Visual cognition.

[51]  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.

[52]  Reinhold Kliegl,et al.  Dissociating preview validity and preview difficulty in parafoveal processing of word n + 1 during reading. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[53]  K. Rayner Eye movements in reading: Models and data , 2003, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

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

[55]  Denis Drieghe,et al.  How fast can predictability influence word skipping during reading? , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[56]  Alexander Pollatsek,et al.  Eye movements and word skipping during reading revisited. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[57]  Reinhold Kliegl,et al.  Parafoveal load of word N+1 modulates preprocessing effectiveness of word N+2 in Chinese reading. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[58]  Scott A McDonald,et al.  Parafoveal preview benefit in reading is only obtained from the saccade goal , 2006, Vision Research.

[59]  D. Zola Redundancy and word perception during reading , 1984, Perception & psychophysics.

[60]  K. Rayner,et al.  Comparing naming, lexical decision, and eye fixation times: Word frequency effects and individual differences , 1998, Memory & cognition.

[61]  K. Rayner,et al.  Eye movements and word skipping during reading: effects of word length and predictability. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.