Dissociating preview validity and preview difficulty in parafoveal processing of word n + 1 during reading.

Many studies have shown that previewing the next word n + 1 during reading leads to substantial processing benefit (e.g., shorter word viewing times) when this word is eventually fixated. However, evidence of such preprocessing in fixations on the preceding word n when in fact the information about the preview is acquired is far less consistent. A recent study suggested that such effects may be delayed into fixations on the next word n + 1 (Risse & Kliegl, 2012). To investigate the time course of parafoveal information-acquisition on the control of eye movements during reading, we conducted 2 gaze-contingent display-change experiments and orthogonally manipulated the processing difficulty (i.e., word frequency) of an n + 1 preview word and its validity relative to the target word. Preview difficulty did not affect fixation durations on the pretarget word n but on the target word n + 1. In fact, the delayed preview-difficulty effect was almost of the same size as the preview benefit associated with the n + 1 preview validity. Based on additional results from quantile-regression analyses on the time course of the 2 preview effects, we discuss consequences as to the integration of foveal and parafoveal information and potential implications for computational models of eye guidance in reading.

[1]  K. Rayner,et al.  Asymmetry of the effective visual field in reading , 1980, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[3]  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.

[4]  Frans W Cornelissen,et al.  The Eyelink Toolbox: Eye tracking with MATLAB and the Psychophysics Toolbox , 2002, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[5]  Wei Zhou,et al.  Lexical and sublexical semantic preview benefits in Chinese reading. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[6]  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.

[7]  Reinhold Kliegl,et al.  Evidence for delayed parafoveal-on-foveal effects from word n+2 in reading. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[8]  A. Jacobs,et al.  Event-Related Potentials Reveal Rapid Verification of Predicted Visual Input , 2009, PloS one.

[9]  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.

[10]  Ralf Engbert,et al.  ICAT: a computational model for the adaptive control of fixation durations , 2014, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[11]  Denis Drieghe,et al.  Parafoveal-on-foveal effects on eye movements during reading , 2011 .

[12]  Victor Kuperman,et al.  The effect of word position on eye-movements in sentence and paragraph reading , 2010, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[13]  Sébastien Miellet,et al.  Phonological codes are assembled before word fixation: Evidence from boundary paradigm in sentence reading , 2004, Brain and Language.

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

[15]  R. Kliegl,et al.  Adult age differences in the perceptual span during reading. , 2011, Psychology and aging.

[16]  Elizabeth A. L. Stine-Morrow,et al.  Pay now or pay later: aging and the role of boundary salience in self-regulation of conceptual integration in sentence processing. , 2010, Psychology and aging.

[17]  Keith Rayner,et al.  Parafoveal processing in reading , 2011, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

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

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

[20]  Alexander Geyken,et al.  dlexDB : eine lexikalische Datenbank für die psychologische und linguistische Forschung , 2011 .

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

[22]  A W Inhoff,et al.  Integrating information across eye fixations in reading: the role of letter and word units. , 1990, Acta psychologica.

[23]  Barbara J. Juhasz,et al.  The effect of plausibility on eye movements in reading. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[24]  Reinhold Kliegl,et al.  Mathematical models of eye movements in reading: a possible role for autonomous saccades , 2001, Biological Cybernetics.

[25]  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.

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

[27]  J. Shaffer Reorganization of variables in analysis of variance and multidimensional contingency tables. , 1977 .

[28]  K. Rayner,et al.  Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity , 1986, Memory & cognition.

[29]  Marc Brysbaert,et al.  A test of parafoveal‐on‐foveal effects with pairs of orthographically related words , 2004 .

[30]  Robin K. Morris,et al.  Phonological codes are used in integrating information across saccades in word identification and reading. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[32]  Carrick C. Williams,et al.  Previewing the neighborhood: the role of orthographic neighbors as parafoveal previews in reading. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

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

[35]  D. Balota,et al.  The interaction of contextual constraints and parafoveal visual information in reading , 1985, Cognitive Psychology.

[36]  K. Arbuthnott,et al.  Asymmetric switch cost and backward inhibition: Carryover activation and inhibition in switching between tasks of unequal difficulty. , 2008, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

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

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

[39]  John M. Henderson,et al.  EVIDENCE FOR THE USE OF PHONOLOGICAL REPRESENTATIONS DURING TRANSSACCADIC WORD RECOGNITION , 1995 .

[40]  Reinhold Kliegl,et al.  Reading strategy modulates parafoveal-on-foveal effects in sentence reading , 2013, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

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

[42]  Erik D. Reichle,et al.  Eye Movement Control during Reading: Effects of Word Frequency and Orthographic Familiarity Word Frequency Effects , 2022 .

[43]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[44]  Erik D. Reichle,et al.  Direct lexical control of eye movements in reading: Evidence from a survival analysis of fixation durations , 2012, Cognitive Psychology.

[45]  A. Kennedy,et al.  The influence of parafoveal typographical errors on eye movements in reading , 2004 .

[46]  A. Pollatsek,et al.  The effects of neighborhood frequency in reading and lexical decision. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

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

[49]  Keith Rayner,et al.  Eye movements and phonological parafoveal preview: effects of reading skill. , 2005, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

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

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

[52]  K. Rayner,et al.  Eye movements and display change detection during reading. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[53]  Stefanie I. Becker,et al.  Eye Movement Control , 2014, Journal of ophthalmology.

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

[55]  R. Koenker Quantile Regression: Fundamentals of Quantile Regression , 2005 .

[56]  Jukka Hyönä,et al.  Foveal and parafoveal processing during reading. , 2011 .

[57]  Susan Kemper,et al.  Constraints on language : aging, grammar, and memory , 2002 .

[58]  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.

[59]  Ralf Engbert,et al.  Microsaccades are triggered by low retinal image slip. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[60]  A W Inhoff,et al.  Parafoveal word perception: A case against semantic preprocessing , 1980, Perception & psychophysics.

[61]  G. McConkie,et al.  Eye movements and integrating information across fixations. , 1978, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[63]  Reinhold Kliegl,et al.  Semantic preview benefit during reading. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

[65]  K. Kraus,et al.  The DWDS corpus: A reference corpus for the German language of the 20 century , 2006 .

[66]  Ralf Engbert,et al.  The zoom lens of attention: Simulating shuffled versus normal text reading using the SWIFT model , 2012, Visual cognition.

[67]  Ralf Engbert,et al.  Microsaccades uncover the orientation of covert attention , 2003, Vision Research.

[68]  G. McConkie,et al.  The span of the effective stimulus during a fixation in reading , 1975 .

[69]  Reinhold Kliegl,et al.  Modulation of additive and interactive effects in lexical decision by trial history. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[70]  Reinhold Kliegl,et al.  Testing Age Invariance in Language Processes , 2002 .

[71]  D G Pelli,et al.  The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[72]  Reinhold Kliegl,et al.  Preview benefit and parafoveal-on-foveal effects from word n + 2. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[73]  D. Balota,et al.  Against parafoveal semantic preprocessing during eye fixations in reading. , 1986, Canadian journal of psychology.