Literature DB >> 11143457

Is the processing of words during eye fixations in reading strictly serial?

A W Inhoff1, M Starr, K L Shindler.   

Abstract

Extant models of oculomotor control during reading maintain that allocation of attention confines word recognition to one (target) word at a time, and that an eye movement to a new (posttarget) word is computed before attention is shifted to it. To test these assumptions, properties of the posttarget's preview were manipulated during the fixation of the preceding target word. The main results revealed longer target viewing durations when the posttarget preview was visually distinctive or when it was orthographically illegal. The meaning of posttarget text did not affect initial target word reading, although it affected the time spent rereading the target. To account for these findings, extant attention-shift models must assume that readers obtain at least visuospatial and orthographic information from a parafovelly visible word before it is attended. This view has shortcomings, however, and several considerations favor less restrictive model assumptions according to which attention can be allocated to more than one word at a time.

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11143457     DOI: 10.3758/bf03212147

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Percept Psychophys        ISSN: 0031-5117


  19 in total

Review 1.  Are long compound words identified serially via their constituents? Evidence from an eye-movement-contingent display change study.

Authors:  Jukka Hyönä; Raymond Bertram; Alexander Pollatsek
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2004-06

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

Authors:  Albrecht W Inhoff; Brianna M Eiter; Ralph Radach
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 3.332

3.  Eye movements and the identification of spatially ambiguous words during chinese sentence reading.

Authors:  Albrecht W Inhoff; Caili Wu
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2005-12

4.  Temporal overlap in the linguistic processing of successive words in reading: reply to Pollatsek, Reichle, and Rayner (2006a).

Authors:  Albrecht W Inhoff; Ralph Radach; Brianna Eiter
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 3.332

5.  Word skipping during sentence reading: effects of lexicality on parafoveal processing.

Authors:  Wonil Choi; Peter C Gordon
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 6.  Parafoveal preview effects from word N + 1 and word N + 2 during reading: A critical review and Bayesian meta-analysis.

Authors:  Martin R Vasilev; Bernhard Angele
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2017-06

7.  Word segmentation of overlapping ambiguous strings during Chinese reading.

Authors:  Guojie Ma; Xingshan Li; Keith Rayner
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2014-01-13       Impact factor: 3.332

8.  Reading is fundamentally similar across disparate writing systems: a systematic characterization of how words and characters influence eye movements in Chinese reading.

Authors:  Xingshan Li; Klinton Bicknell; Pingping Liu; Wei Wei; Keith Rayner
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2013-07-08

9.  Mislocated fixations can account for parafoveal-on-foveal effects in eye movements during reading.

Authors:  Denis Drieghe; Keith Rayner; Alexander Pollatsek
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 2.143

10.  Out of the corner of my eye: Foveal semantic load modulates parafoveal processing in reading.

Authors:  Brennan R Payne; Mallory C Stites; Kara D Federmeier
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2016-07-18       Impact factor: 3.332

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.