Task Relevance Induces Momentary Changes in the Functional Visual Field During Reading

In the research reported here, we examined whether task demands can induce momentary tunnel vision during reading. More specifically, we examined whether the size of the functional visual field depends on task relevance. Forty participants read an expository text with a specific task in mind while their eye movements were recorded. A display-change paradigm with random-letter strings as preview masks was used to study the size of the functional visual field within sentences that contained task-relevant and task-irrelevant information. The results showed that orthographic parafoveal-on-foveal effects and preview benefits were observed for words within task-irrelevant but not task-relevant sentences. The results indicate that the size of the functional visual field is flexible and depends on the momentary processing demands of a reading task. The higher cognitive processing requirements experienced when reading task-relevant text rather than task-irrelevant text induce momentary tunnel vision, which narrows the functional visual field.

[1]  Reinhold Kliegl,et al.  Reading strategy modulates parafoveal-on-foveal effects in sentence reading , 2013, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[2]  Ralph Radach,et al.  Eye Movements in Reading , 1999 .

[3]  Wayne L. Shebilske,et al.  9 – Eye Movements and Context Effects during Reading of Extended Discourse , 1983 .

[4]  Ralf Engbert,et al.  Tracking the mind during reading: the influence of past, present, and future words on fixation durations. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[5]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[6]  F. Laycock.  Significant Characteristics of College Students with Varying Flexibility in Reading Rate: I. Eye-Movements in Reading Prose , 1955 .

[7]  R. Baayen,et al.  Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items , 2008 .

[8]  Denis Drieghe,et al.  Parafoveal-on-foveal effects on eye movements during reading , 2011 .

[9]  Alan Kennedy,et al.  Parafoveal Processing in Word Recognition , 2000, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[10]  Jukka Hyönä,et al.  Perspective Effects on Online Text Processing , 2002 .

[11]  Jukka Hyönä,et al.  Foveal and parafoveal processing during reading. , 2011 .

[12]  R. Reilly,et al.  The role of global top-down factors in local eye-movement control in reading , 2008, Psychological research.

[13]  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.

[14]  A W Inhoff,et al.  Is the processing of words during eye fixations in reading strictly serial? , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

[15]  M. J. Billington,et al.  Goal-guided learning from text: inferring a descriptive processing model from inspection times and eye movements. , 1979, Journal of educational psychology.

[16]  Johanna K. Kaakinen,et al.  Perspective effects in repeated reading: An eye movement study , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[17]  Lester C. Loschky,et al.  Perception onset time during fixations in free viewing , 2002, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

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

[19]  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.

[20]  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.

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