Literature DB >> 2755766

The acquisition of parafoveal word information in reading.

H E Blanchard, A Pollatsek, K Rayner.   

Abstract

A somewhat counterintuitive finding has emerged from experiments that restrict the "window" of visual information available on a fixation during reading: fixation duration increases even though there is less information to process on a fixation. The two most likely explanations for this phenomenon are: (1) that the reader extracts abnormal information outside the window and this slows down processing; (2) that a restricted window does not allow a preview of a word before it is fixated, and hence identification of the word is slower when the word subsequently is fixated. In the present experiments, these two alternatives were tested. Conditions in which the size of the window alternated between fixations were compared with conditions in which the size of the window remained constant from fixation to fixation. This manipulation allowed us to separate effects due to restriction of the size of the window on the current fixation from preview benefits (which would be due to restriction of the size of the window on the prior fixation). Two experiments demonstrated clear beneficial effects on fixation duration due to receiving a preview of a word on the fixation prior to when it was fixated. In contrast, restriction of the size of the window had only marginal effects on the fixation on which that restriction occurred. In addition, a subsidiary analysis suggested that the benefit of previewing a word was influenced by its length; for short words, a preview primarily allowed the reader to skip the word more frequently, whereas for longer words, a preview primarily shortened the fixation time on the word when it was later fixated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2755766     DOI: 10.3758/bf03208078

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


  18 in total

1.  Lexical access during eye fixations in reading: effects of word-initial letter sequence.

Authors:  S D Lima; A W Inhoff
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1985-06       Impact factor: 3.332

2.  Against parafoveal semantic preprocessing during eye fixations in reading.

Authors:  K Rayner; D A Balota; A Pollatsek
Journal:  Can J Psychol       Date:  1986-12

3.  Parafoveal word processing during eye fixations in reading: effects of word frequency.

Authors:  A W Inhoff; K Rayner
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1986-12

4.  Inferences about eye movement control from the perceptual span in reading.

Authors:  A Pollatsek; K Rayner; D A Balota
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1986-08

5.  Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity.

Authors:  K Rayner; S A Duffy
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1986-05

6.  Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension.

Authors:  M A Just; P A Carpenter; J D Woolley
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  1982-06

7.  Masking of foveal and parafoveal vision during eye fixations in reading.

Authors:  K Rayner; A W Inhoff; R E Morrison; M L Slowiaczek; J H Bertera
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1981-02       Impact factor: 3.332

8.  Asymmetry of the effective visual field in reading.

Authors:  K Rayner; A D Well; A Pollatsek
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1980-06

9.  Reading without a fovea.

Authors:  K Rayner; J H Bertera
Journal:  Science       Date:  1979-10-26       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  Span of recognition in reading.

Authors:  M Ikeda; S Saida
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1978       Impact factor: 1.886

View more
  14 in total

1.  Reading units that include interword spaces: filling spaces around a letter can facilitate letter detection.

Authors:  Alice F Healy; Thomas F Cunningham
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2004-06

2.  The effect of contextual constraint on parafoveal processing in reading.

Authors:  Elizabeth R Schotter; Michelle Lee; Michael Reiderman; Keith Rayner
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2015-08-01       Impact factor: 3.059

3.  Linguistic focus and memory: an eye movement study.

Authors:  Peter Ward; Patrick Sturt
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2007-01

4.  Early and late selection in partial report: evidence from degraded displays.

Authors:  D J Mewhort; E E Johns; S Coble
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1991-09

5.  The dependence of visual scanning performance on search direction and difficulty.

Authors:  Matthew H Phillips; Jay A Edelman
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2008-08-15       Impact factor: 1.886

6.  Can a temporal processing deficit account for dyslexia?

Authors:  K Rayner; A Pollatsek; A B Bilsky
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  1995-12

7.  Lexical integration across saccades in reading.

Authors:  A W Inhoff; S Tousman
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  1990

8.  Mindless reading: eye-movement characteristics are similar in scanning letter strings and reading texts.

Authors:  F Vitu; J K O'Regan; A W Inhoff; R Topolski
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1995-04

9.  Opening a Window into Reading Development: Eye Movements' Role Within a Broader Literacy Research Framework.

Authors:  Brett Miller; Carol O'Donnell
Journal:  School Psych Rev       Date:  2013

10.  Parafoveal-foveal overlap can facilitate ongoing word identification during reading: evidence from eye movements.

Authors:  Bernhard Angele; Randy Tran; Keith Rayner
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2012-08-06       Impact factor: 3.332

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.