The lexical access of multiple words during a single fixation: overlapping access processes?

ABSTRACT Since it has become increasingly difficult to tease apart the predictions of serial and parallel models of eye movement control during reading, we return to the underlying theoretical question of whether parallel lexical processing of two words is, at the very least, psychologically plausible. Two horizontally aligned letter strings were presented simultaneously on a screen, the task being to decide whether they were physically identical or not. Even with presentation durations short enough to prohibit serial inspection of each word, the results show clear lexical effects: high frequency word pairs were responded to faster and with fewer errors than low frequency words. Effects of lexicality, orthography and scanning direction were also found. The results suggest that two words can be processed at a lexical level in an overlapping fashion.

[1]  Elizabeth R Schotter,et al.  Eye Movements and Comprehension Are Important to Reading , 2019, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[2]  Wayne S. Murray,et al.  Early, Mandatory, Pragmatic Processing , 1998 .

[3]  Reinhold Kliegl,et al.  Semantic preview benefit in eye movements during reading: A parafoveal fast-priming study. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[4]  K I Forster,et al.  Evidence for lexical access in a simultaneous matching task , 1975, Memory & cognition.

[5]  Alexander Pollatsek,et al.  Mislocated fixations can account for parafoveal-on-foveal effects in eye movements during reading , 2008, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[6]  Jonathan Grainger,et al.  Parallel semantic processing in reading revisited: effects of translation equivalents in bilingual readers , 2018 .

[7]  Jonathan Grainger,et al.  Readers Are Parallel Processors , 2019, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[8]  G. V. Simpson,et al.  Flow of activation from V1 to frontal cortex in humans , 2001, Experimental Brain Research.

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

[10]  G. McConkie,et al.  Asymmetry of the perceptual span in reading , 1976 .

[11]  K. Holmqvist,et al.  Right visual field advantage in parafoveal processing: Evidence from eye-fixation-related potentials , 2009, Brain and Language.

[12]  Jukka Hyönä,et al.  Do frequency characteristics of nonfixated words influence the processing of fixated words during reading? , 2004 .

[13]  Denis Drieghe,et al.  Using E-Z Reader to examine the consequences of fixation-location measurement error. , 2015, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[14]  Martin H Fischer,et al.  Serial and parallel processes in eye movement control: Current controversies and future directions , 2013, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[15]  S. Andrews,et al.  Semantic preview benefit in English: Individual differences in the extraction and use of parafoveal semantic information. , 2016, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[16]  Jonathan Grainger,et al.  Evidence for simultaneous syntactic processing of multiple words during reading , 2017, PloS one.

[17]  Leslie Henderson,et al.  A Word Superiority Effect without Orthographic Assistance , 1974 .

[18]  Keith Rayner,et al.  Parafoveal processing of word n + 2 during reading: do the preceding words matter? , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[19]  Gary E. Raney,et al.  Eye movement control in reading and visual search: Effects of word frequency , 1996, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[20]  Alexander Pollatsek,et al.  Encoding multiple words simultaneously in reading is implausible , 2009, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[21]  John Palmer,et al.  Parallel spatial channels converge at a bottleneck in anterior word-selective cortex , 2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

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

[24]  H. Clahsen,et al.  Grammatical constraints in syntactic processing: Sentence-matching experiments on German , 1995 .

[25]  Jonathan Grainger,et al.  Consciousness Is Not Key in the Serial-versus-Parallel Debate , 2019, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[26]  Kenneth I Forster,et al.  DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy , 2003, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[27]  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.

[28]  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.

[29]  Erik D. Reichle,et al.  Rethinking parafoveal processing in reading: Serial-attention models can explain semantic preview benefit and N+2 preview effects , 2014 .

[30]  Elizabeth R Schotter,et al.  Synonyms Provide Semantic Preview Benefit in English. , 2013, Journal of memory and language.

[31]  Alan Garnham,et al.  Psycholinguistics: Central Topics , 1985 .

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

[33]  Reinhold Kliegl,et al.  Parallel graded attention models of reading , 2011 .