A test of parafoveal‐on‐foveal effects with pairs of orthographically related words

One of the main controversies in the field of eye movements in reading concerns the question of whether the processing of two adjacent words in reading occurs in sequence, or in parallel. To distinguish between these views, the present experiment tested the presence of parafoveal‐on‐foveal effects with pairs of orthographically related words (or neighbours that differed by a single letter) in a controlled but reading‐like situation. Results revealed that fixation times on a foveal target word were shorter when the target was accompanied by an orthographically similar parafoveal word than when the parafoveal word was dissimilar. Furthermore, the size of the effect tended to vary with both the relative frequency of target and parafoveal words, and the position of the critical letter. These results were interpreted in the framework of a pure parallel processing hypothesis, where the processing of adjacent words is only limited by visual acuity, and the respective lexical properties of the foveal and parafoveal words.

[1]  A Pollatsek,et al.  Semantic codes are not used in integrating information across eye fixations in reading: Evidence from fluent Spanish-English bilinguals , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[3]  Simon P. Liversedge,et al.  Orthographic familiarity influences initial eye fixation positions in reading , 2004 .

[4]  George W. McConkie,et al.  On the Role and Control of Eye Movements in Reading , 1979 .

[5]  J Grainger,et al.  Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: a multiple read-out model. , 1996, Psychological review.

[6]  A. Treisman,et al.  Illusory words: the roles of attention and of top-down constraints in conjoining letters to form words. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  S. Andrews.  The effect of orthographic similarity on lexical retrieval: Resolving neighborhood conflicts , 1997 .

[8]  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.

[9]  J. Grainger,et al.  Priming word recognition with orthographic neighbors: effects of relative prime-target frequency. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[10]  Max Coltheart,et al.  Access to the internal lexicon , 1977 .

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

[12]  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.

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

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

[15]  J. Kevin O'Regan,et al.  A Challenge to Current Theories of Eye Movements in Reading. , 1995 .

[16]  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.

[17]  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.

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

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

[20]  J. O'Regan,et al.  Fixation location effects on fixation durations during reading: an inverted optimal viewing position effect , 2001, Vision Research.

[21]  M. Mozer.  Letter migration in word perception. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[22]  K. Rayner,et al.  Parafoveal word processing during eye fixations in reading: Effects of word frequency , 1986, Perception & psychophysics.

[23]  J L Bradshaw,et al.  Peripherally presented and unreported words may bias the perceived meaning of a centrally fixated homograph. , 1974, Journal of experimental psychology.

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

[25]  C. Schiepers,et al.  Response latency and accuracy in visual word recogniton , 1980, Perception & psychophysics.

[26]  Seth N. Greenberg,et al.  Allocation of Visuo-Spatial Attention and Saccade Programming During Reading , 2000 .

[27]  F. Vitu,et al.  The influence of parafoveal preprocessing and linguistic context on the optimal landing position effect , 1991, Perception & psychophysics.

[28]  F. Vitu.  The influence of the reading rhythm on the optimal landing position effect , 1993 .

[29]  H. Bouma.  Visual interference in the parafoveal recognition of initial and final letters of words. , 1973, Vision research.

[30]  H D Crane,et al.  Accurate two-dimensional eye tracker using first and fourth Purkinje images. , 1973, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[31]  A. Kennedy,et al.  Parafoveal-on-foveal interactions in word recognition , 2002, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[32]  Manuel Perea,et al.  Orthographic Neighbours are not all Equal: Evidence using an Identification Technique , 1998, Language and Cognitive Processes.

[33]  A Pollatsek,et al.  The effects of "neighborhood size" in reading and lexical decision. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[35]  J. Henderson,et al.  Eye movement control during reading: fixation measures reflect foveal but not parafoveal processing difficulty. , 1993, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.