The Adaptive Nature of Eye Movements in Linguistic Tasks: How Payoff and Architecture Shape Speed-Accuracy Trade-Offs

We explore the idea that eye-movement strategies in reading are precisely adapted to the joint constraints of task structure, task payoff, and processing architecture. We present a model of saccadic control that separates a parametric control policy space from a parametric machine architecture, the latter based on a small set of assumptions derived from research on eye movements in reading (Engbert, Nuthmann, Richter, & Kliegl, 2005; Reichle, Warren, & McConnell, 2009). The eye-control model is embedded in a decision architecture (a machine and policy space) that is capable of performing a simple linguistic task integrating information across saccades. Model predictions are derived by jointly optimizing the control of eye movements and task decisions under payoffs that quantitatively express different desired speed-accuracy trade-offs. The model yields distinct eye-movement predictions for the same task under different payoffs, including single-fixation durations, frequency effects, accuracy effects, and list position effects, and their modulation by task payoff. The predictions are compared to-and found to accord with-eye-movement data obtained from human participants performing the same task under the same payoffs, but they are found not to accord as well when the assumptions concerning payoff optimization and processing architecture are varied. These results extend work on rational analysis of oculomotor control and adaptation of reading strategy (Bicknell & Levy, ; McConkie, Rayner, & Wilson, 1973; Norris, 2009; Wotschack, 2009) by providing evidence for adaptation at low levels of saccadic control that is shaped by quantitatively varying task demands and the dynamics of processing architecture.

[1]  J. Wolfowitz,et al.  Optimum Character of the Sequential Probability Ratio Test , 1948 .

[2]  J. Swets,et al.  A decision-making theory of visual detection. , 1954, Psychological review.

[3]  M. Stone Models for choice-reaction time , 1960 .

[4]  W. Edwards Behavioral decision theory. , 1961, Annual review of psychology.

[5]  W. Edwards Optimal strategies for seeking information: Models for statistics, choice reaction times, and human information processing ☆ , 1965 .

[6]  D. M. Green,et al.  Signal detection theory and psychophysics , 1966 .

[7]  H. Kucera,et al.  Computational analysis of present-day American English , 1967 .

[8]  R. Schvaneveldt,et al.  Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. , 1971, Journal of experimental psychology.

[9]  A. Newell You can't play 20 questions with nature and win : projective comments on the papers of this symposium , 1973 .

[10]  Steven J. Wilson,et al.  Experimental manipulation of reading strategies. , 1973 .

[11]  Roger Ratcliff,et al.  A Theory of Memory Retrieval. , 1978 .

[12]  P. Rabbitt How old and young subjects monitor and control responses for accuracy and speed , 1979 .

[13]  W. Cooper,et al.  Sentence Processing: Psycholinguistic Studies Presented to Merrill Garrett. , 1980 .

[14]  W. Geisler Sequential ideal-observer analysis of visual discriminations. , 1989, Psychological review.

[15]  John R. Anderson The Adaptive Character of Thought , 1990 .

[16]  J. Grainger Word frequency and neighborhood frequency effects in lexical decision and naming. , 1990 .

[17]  Devika Subramanian,et al.  Provably Bounded Optimal Agents , 1993, IJCAI.

[18]  G. Smith,et al.  Slowness and age: speed-accuracy mechanisms. , 1995, Psychology and aging.

[19]  Andrew W. Moore,et al.  Reinforcement Learning: A Survey , 1996, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[20]  K. Rayner,et al.  Eye movement control in reading and visual search: Effects of word frequency , 1996, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

[22]  D E Kieras,et al.  A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 1. Basic mechanisms. , 1997, Psychological review.

[23]  V. Carey,et al.  Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-Plus , 2001 .

[24]  S. Thorpe,et al.  The Time Course of Visual Processing: From Early Perception to Decision-Making , 2001, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[25]  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.

[26]  Tommi S. Jaakkola,et al.  Convergence Results for Single-Step On-Policy Reinforcement-Learning Algorithms , 2000, Machine Learning.

[27]  Richard S. Sutton,et al.  Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction , 1998, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks.

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

[29]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  An Activation-Based Model of Sentence Processing as Skilled Memory Retrieval , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[30]  Dennis Norris,et al.  The Bayesian reader: explaining word recognition as an optimal Bayesian decision process. , 2006, Psychological review.

[31]  Ralf Engbert,et al.  SWIFT explorations of age differences in eye movements during reading , 2006, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[32]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  The physics of optimal decision making: a formal analysis of models of performance in two-alternative forced-choice tasks. , 2006, Psychological review.

[33]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[34]  Mary M Hayhoe,et al.  Task and context determine where you look. , 2016, Journal of vision.

[35]  J. Todd,et al.  The effects of viewing angle, camera angle, and sign of surface curvature on the perception of three-dimensional shape from texture. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[36]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Integrated Bayesian models of learning and decision making for saccadic eye movements☆ , 2008, Neural Networks.

[37]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  A Diffusion Model Account of Criterion Shifts in the Lexical Decision Task. , 2008, Journal of memory and language.

[38]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  Rational adaptation under task and processing constraints: implications for testing theories of cognition and action. , 2009, Psychological review.

[39]  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.

[40]  K. Rayner,et al.  Eye movement evidence that readers maintain and act on uncertainty about past linguistic input , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[41]  D. Ballard,et al.  Modelling the role of task in the control of gaze , 2009, Visual cognition.

[42]  Dennis Norris,et al.  Putting it all together: a unified account of word recognition and reaction-time distributions. , 2009, Psychological review.

[43]  R. Levy,et al.  Rational eye movements in reading combining uncertainty about previous words with contextual probability , 2010 .

[44]  Roger Levy,et al.  A Rational Model of Eye Movement Control in Reading , 2010, ACL.

[45]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  The effects of aging on the speed-accuracy compromise: Boundary optimality in the diffusion model. , 2010, Psychology and aging.

[46]  Erik D. Reichle,et al.  Eye Movements During Mindless Reading , 2010, Psychological science.

[47]  A. Newell YOU CAN ' T PLAY 20 QUESTIONS WITH , 2011 .

[48]  Anne Pier Salverda,et al.  A goal-based perspective on eye movements in visual world studies. , 2011, Acta psychologica.

[49]  John T. Hale,et al.  What a Rational Parser Would Do , 2011, Cogn. Sci..

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