Time course of linguistic information extraction from consecutive words during eye fixations in reading.

Sequential attention shift models of reading predict that an attended (typically fixated) word must be recognized before useful linguistic information can be obtained from the following (parafoveal) word. These models also predict that linguistic information is obtained from a parafoveal word immediately prior to a saccade toward it. To test these assumptions, sentences were constructed with a critical pretarget-target word sequence, and the temporal availability of the (parafoveal) target preview was manipulated while the pretarget word was fixated. Target viewing effects, examined as a function of prior target visibility, revealed that extraction of linguistic target information began 70-140 ms after the onset of pretarget viewing. Critically, acquisition of useful linguistic information from a target was not confined to the ending period of pretarget viewing. These results favor theoretical conceptions in which there is some temporal overlap in the linguistic processing of a fixated and parafoveally visible word during reading.

[1]  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.

[2]  K. Shapiro.  The limits of attention : temporal constraints in human information processing , 2001 .

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

[4]  Visual attention is no faster than the eyes. , 2001 .

[5]  G. McConkie,et al.  Is visual information integrated across successive fixations in reading? , 1979, Perception & psychophysics.

[6]  George W. McConkie,et al.  New directions in theories of eye-movement control during reading , 2005 .

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

[8]  Jonathan Grainger,et al.  Commentary on Section 3 – Moving Eyes and Reading Words: How Can a Computational Model Combine the Two? , 2003 .

[9]  Robin K. Morris,et al.  Eye movement guidance in reading: the role of parafoveal letter and space information. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[10]  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.

[11]  Heiner Deubel,et al.  Commentary on Section 2. Attention, information processing and eye movement control. , 2000 .

[12]  A. Kennedy,et al.  Theoretical perspectives on eye movements in reading: Past controversies, current issues, and an agenda for future research , 2004 .

[13]  H. Deubel,et al.  Attention, saccade programming, and the timing of eye-movement control , 2003, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[14]  Barbara J. Juhasz,et al.  Distinct Subsystems for the Parafoveal Processing of Spatial and Linguistic Information during Eye Fixations in Reading , 2003, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[15]  G. McConkie,et al.  Integrating information across eye movements , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[16]  K. Rayner,et al.  Eye Movements in Reading: Perceptual and Language Processes , 1985 .

[17]  William D. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Lexical Representation and Process , 1991 .

[18]  A. Kennedy,et al.  Parafoveal-on-foveal effects in normal reading , 2005, Vision Research.

[19]  H. Deubel,et al.  Current oculomotor research : physiological and psychological aspects , 1999 .

[20]  Alan Kennedy,et al.  Attention Allocation in Reading: Sequential or Parallel? , 2000 .

[21]  G. Legge,et al.  Mr. Chips: An ideal-observer model of reading , 1997 .

[22]  U. Neisser.  VISUAL SEARCH. , 1964, Scientific American.

[23]  G. Underwood.  Cognitive processes in eye guidance , 2005 .

[24]  G. McConkie,et al.  Regressive Saccades and Word Perception in Adult Reading , 2000 .

[25]  Arthur M. Jacobs,et al.  Commentary on Section 5 – Five Questions about Cognitive Models and Some Answers from Three Models of Reading , 2000 .

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

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

[28]  M. Posner,et al.  Establishing a time‐line of word recognition: evidence from eye movements and event‐related potentials , 1998, Neuroreport.

[29]  Robin K. Morris,et al.  Multiple lexical codes in reading: Evidence from eye movements, naming time, and oral reading. , 1995 .

[30]  Joël Pynte,et al.  Reading as a Perceptual Process , 2000 .

[31]  Gordon E. Legge,et al.  Saccade Planning in Reading With Central Scotomas: Comparison of Human and Ideal Performance , 2000 .

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

[33]  A Pollatsek,et al.  Covert Attention and Eye Movements during Reading , 1989, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[34]  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.

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

[36]  M. Posner,et al.  Orienting of Attention* , 1980, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[37]  D. Norris,et al.  Naming cAsE aLtErNaTeD words , 1999, Memory & cognition.

[38]  Albrecht W. Inhoff,et al.  Attention allocation to the right and left of a fixated word: Use of orthographic information from multiple words during reading , 2004 .

[39]  Geoffrey Underwood,et al.  Attentional Demands on the Processing of Neighbouring Words , 2000 .

[40]  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.

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

[42]  James C. Johnston,et al.  Reading and the mental lexicon: on the uptake of visual information , 1989 .

[43]  K. Rayner,et al.  Eye Movement Control during Reading: Evidence for Direct Control , 1981, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

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

[45]  Thomas W. Hogaboam,et al.  18 – Reading Patterns in Eye Movement Data , 1983 .

[46]  John M. Findlay,et al.  Serial programming for saccades: Does it all add up? , 2003 .

[47]  K. Rayner,et al.  Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

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

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

[50]  Ralf Engbert,et al.  Chapter 19 – SWIFT Explorations , 2003 .

[51]  Erik D. Reichle,et al.  Eye movement control in reading and the E-Z Reader model , 2005 .

[52]  Heiner Deubel,et al.  The mind's eye : cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research , 2003 .

[53]  Jeremy M Wolfe,et al.  Attentional pursuit is faster than attentional saccade. , 2004, Journal of vision.

[54]  Albrecht W. Inhoff,et al.  Advancing the methodological middle ground , 2003 .

[55]  Jan Theeuwes,et al.  A new estimation of the duration of attentional dwell time , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[56]  Keith Rayner,et al.  On the Processing of Meaning from Parafoveal Vision During Eye Fixations in Reading , 2003 .

[57]  G. Legge,et al.  Mr. Chips 2002: new insights from an ideal-observer model of reading , 2002, Vision Research.

[58]  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.

[59]  A. Jacobs,et al.  On localist connectionism and psychological science. , 1998 .

[60]  G. McConkie,et al.  Chapter 4 – Determinants of Fixation Positions in Words During Reading , 1998 .

[61]  Sara C. Sereno,et al.  Neural plausibility and validation may not be so e-z , 2003 .

[62]  M. Pickering,et al.  Eye guidance in reading and scene perception , 1998 .

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

[64]  Ronan G. Reilly,et al.  Glenmore: an interactive activation model of eye movement control in reading , 2002, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Neural Information Processing, 2002. ICONIP '02..

[65]  M. Daneman,et al.  Phonological recoding in silent reading , 1991 .

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

[67]  S. Yantis,et al.  Visual attention: control, representation, and time course. , 1997, Annual review of psychology.

[68]  J. H. Bertera,et al.  Masking of foveal and parafoveal vision during eye fixations in reading. , 1981, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[70]  Keith Rayner.  Eye Movements in Reading , 2001 .

[71]  Ulrich W. Weger,et al.  Memory for word location during reading: Eye movements to previously read words are spatially selective but not precise , 2005, Memory & cognition.

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

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

[74]  M. Coltheart,et al.  Case alternation impairs word identification , 1974 .