Encoding multiple words simultaneously in reading is implausible

Several prominent models of reading posit that attention is distributed to support the parallel lexical processing of multiple words. We contend that the auxiliary assumptions underlying this attention-gradient hypothesis are not well founded. Here, we address three specific issues related to the ongoing debate about attention allocation during reading: (i) why the attention-gradient hypothesis is widely endorsed, (ii) why processing several words in parallel in reading is implausible and (iii) why attention must be allocated to only one word at a time. Full consideration of these arguments supports the hypothesis that attention is allocated serially during reading.

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

[2]  Gary Feng,et al.  Eye movements as time-series random variables: A stochastic model of eye movement control in reading , 2006, Cognitive Systems Research.

[3]  B. Ans,et al.  A connectionist multiple-trace memory model for polysyllabic word reading. , 1998, Psychological review.

[4]  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.

[5]  Ralph Radach,et al.  Temporal overlap in the linguistic processing of successive words in reading: reply to Pollatsek, Reichle, and Rayner (2006a). , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[6]  R. Reilly,et al.  Eye movement control during reading: A simulation of some word-targeting strategies , 1998, Vision Research.

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

[8]  G. Underwood.  Eye guidance in reading and scene perception , 1998 .

[9]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Toward a model of text comprehension and production. , 1978 .

[10]  Robin L. Hill,et al.  Eye movements : a window on mind and brain , 2007 .

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

[12]  D. E. Irwin,et al.  Lexical Processing during Saccadic Eye Movements , 1998, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[14]  A. Treisman.  Features and Objects: The Fourteenth Bartlett Memorial Lecture , 1988, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

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

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

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

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

[19]  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.

[20]  A. Treisman,et al.  A feature-integration theory of attention , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[21]  Erik D. Reichle,et al.  Tracking the mind during reading via eye movements: comments on Kliegl, Nuthmann, and Engbert (2006). , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[22]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  The appeal of parallel distributed processing , 1986 .

[23]  Alexander Pollatsek,et al.  Serial processing is consistent with the time course of linguistic information extraction from consecutive words during eye fixations in reading: a response to Inhoff, Eiter, and Radach (2005). , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[24]  Alexander Pollatsek,et al.  Extending the E-Z Reader Model of Eye Movement Control to Chinese Readers , 2007, Cogn. Sci..

[25]  K. Rayner,et al.  Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. , 1998 .

[26]  Reinhold Kliegl,et al.  Current advances in SWIFT , 2006, Cognitive Systems Research.

[27]  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.

[28]  Richard C. Atkinson,et al.  Human Memory: A Proposed System and its Control Processes , 1968, Psychology of Learning and Motivation.

[29]  D. D. Wheeler.  Processes in word recognition , 1970 .

[30]  R H S Carpenter,et al.  An anatomically constrained, stochastic model of eye movement control in reading. , 2005, Psychological review.

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

[32]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition, vol. 1: foundations , 1986 .

[33]  Erik D. Reichle,et al.  Serial or parallel? Using depth-of-processing to examine attention allocation during reading , 2008, Vision Research.

[34]  Ralph Radach,et al.  Time course of linguistic information extraction from consecutive words during eye fixations in reading. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[35]  Alexander Pollatsek,et al.  Attention to one word at a time in reading is still a viable hypothesis: rejoinder to Inhoff, Radach, and Eiter (2006). , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[36]  M A Just,et al.  A theory of reading: from eye fixations to comprehension. , 1980, Psychological review.

[37]  M. Mesulam,et al.  From sensation to cognition. , 1998, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[38]  Shun-Nan Yang,et al.  An oculomotor-based model of eye movements in reading: The competition/interaction model , 2006, Cognitive Systems Research.

[39]  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.

[40]  Alan Kennedy,et al.  The Influence of Parafoveal Words on Foveal Inspection Time: Evidence for a Processing Trade-Off , 1998 .

[41]  G. M. Reicher.  Perceptual recognition as a function of meaninfulness of stimulus material. , 1969, Journal of experimental psychology.

[42]  Keith Rayner,et al.  Eye movements in reading: Old questions and new directions , 2004 .

[43]  Wayne S. Murray,et al.  Parafoveal pragmatics revisited , 2004 .

[44]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Guided Search 2.0 A revised model of visual search , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[45]  Alexander Pollatsek,et al.  Is covert attention really unnecessary? , 1999, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[46]  K. Rayner,et al.  The psychology of reading , 1989 .

[47]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 2. The contextual enhancement effect and some tests and extensions of the model. , 1982, Psychological review.

[48]  Alexander Pollatsek,et al.  Are long compound words identified serially via their constituents? Evidence from an eyemovement-contingent display change study , 2004, Memory & cognition.

[49]  K. Rayner,et al.  Eye movements in reading words and sentences , 2007 .

[50]  Robert W. Kentridge,et al.  Eye movements when reading disappearing text: is there a gap effect in reading? , 2004, Vision Research.

[51]  Simon P. Liversedge,et al.  Eye movements when reading disappearing text: The importance of the word to the right of fixation , 2006, Vision Research.

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

[53]  Terrence J. Sejnowski,et al.  The Computational Brain , 1996, Artif. Intell..

[54]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Understanding normal and impaired word reading: computational principles in quasi-regular domains. , 1996, Psychological review.