Literature DB >> 27732044

Reversed preview benefit effects: Forced fixations emphasize the importance of parafoveal vision for efficient reading.

Elizabeth R Schotter1, Mallorie Leinenger1.   

Abstract

Current theories of eye movement control in reading posit that processing of an upcoming parafoveal preview word is used to facilitate processing of that word once it is fixated (i.e., as a foveal target word). This preview benefit is demonstrated by shorter fixation durations in the case of valid (i.e., identical or linguistically similar) compared with invalid (i.e., dissimilar) preview conditions. However, we suggest that processing of the preview can directly influence fixation behavior on the target, independent of similarity between them. In Experiment 1, unrelated high and low frequency words were used as orthogonally crossed previews and targets and we observed a reversed preview benefit for low frequency targets-shorter fixation durations with an invalid, higher frequency preview compared with a valid, low frequency preview. In Experiment 2, the target words were replaced with orthographically legal and illegal nonwords and we found a similar effect of preview frequency on fixation durations on the targets, as well as a bimodal distribution in the illegal nonword target conditions with a denser early peak for high than low frequency previews. In Experiment 3, nonwords were used as previews for high and low frequency targets, replicating standard findings that "denied" preview increases fixation durations and the influence of target properties. These effects can be explained by forced fixations, cases in which fixations on the target were shortened as a consequence of the timing of word recognition of the preview relative to the time course of saccade programming to that word from the prior one. That is, the preview word was (at least partially) recognized so that it should have been skipped, but the word could not be skipped because the saccade to that word was in a nonlabile stage. In these cases, the system preinitiates the subsequent saccade off the upcoming word to the following word and the intervening fixation is short. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27732044      PMCID: PMC5117456          DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000270

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform        ISSN: 0096-1523            Impact factor:   3.332


  44 in total

1.  Eye movement control in reading: word predictability has little influence on initial landing positions in words.

Authors:  K Rayner; K S Binder; J Ashby; A Pollatsek
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 1.886

Review 2.  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

Review 3.  Parafoveal processing in reading.

Authors:  Elizabeth R Schotter; Bernhard Angele; Keith Rayner
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 2.199

4.  How preview space/time translates into preview cost/benefit for fixation durations during reading.

Authors:  Reinhold Kliegl; Sven Hohenstein; Ming Yan; Scott A McDonald
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2012-04-19       Impact factor: 2.143

5.  SWIFT: a dynamical model of saccade generation during reading.

Authors:  Ralf Engbert; Antje Nuthmann; Eike M Richter; Reinhold Kliegl
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 8.934

6.  Mislocated fixations during reading and the inverted optimal viewing position effect.

Authors:  Antje Nuthmann; Ralf Engbert; Reinhold Kliegl
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2005-03-29       Impact factor: 1.886

7.  The English Lexicon Project.

Authors:  David A Balota; Melvin J Yap; Michael J Cortese; Keith A Hutchison; Brett Kessler; Bjorn Loftis; James H Neely; Douglas L Nelson; Greg B Simpson; Rebecca Treiman
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2007-08

8.  Using E-Z reader to examine word skipping during reading.

Authors:  Erik D Reichle; Denis Drieghe
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2012-12-03       Impact factor: 3.051

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.  Eye movements when reading disappearing text: the importance of the word to the right of fixation.

Authors:  Keith Rayner; Simon P Liversedge; Sarah J White
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2005-08-08       Impact factor: 1.886

View more
  8 in total

1.  When your mind skips what your eyes fixate: How forced fixations lead to comprehension illusions in reading.

Authors:  Elizabeth R Schotter; Mallorie Leinenger; Titus von der Malsburg
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-10

2.  Readers can identify the meanings of words without looking at them: Evidence from regressive eye movements.

Authors:  Elizabeth R Schotter; Anna Marie Fennell
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2019-10

3.  Event-related brain potentials reveal how multiple aspects of semantic processing unfold across parafoveal and foveal vision during sentence reading.

Authors:  Brennan R Payne; Mallory C Stites; Kara D Federmeier
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2019-07-05       Impact factor: 4.016

Review 4.  Preview frequency effects in reading: evidence from Chinese.

Authors:  Jinger Pan; Ming Yan
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2022-01-27

5.  Survival analyses reveal how early phonological processing affects eye movements during reading.

Authors:  Mallorie Leinenger
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2018-07-26       Impact factor: 3.051

6.  What reading aloud reveals about speaking: Regressive saccades implicate a failure to monitor, not inattention, in the prevalence of intrusion errors on function words.

Authors:  Elizabeth R Schotter; Chuchu Li; Tamar H Gollan
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2019-01-29       Impact factor: 2.138

7.  Do Readers Integrate Phonological Codes Across Saccades? A Bayesian Meta-Analysis and a Survey of the Unpublished Literature.

Authors:  Martin R Vasilev; Mark Yates; Timothy J Slattery
Journal:  J Cogn       Date:  2019-10-04

8.  Predictive modeling of parafoveal information processing during reading.

Authors:  Stefan Seelig; Sarah Risse; Ralf Engbert
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-06-21       Impact factor: 4.379

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.