No abstract

Humans typically make use of both of their eyes in reading and efficient processes of binocular vision provide a stable, single percept of the text. Binocular reading also comes with an advantage: reading speed is high and word frequency effects (i.e., faster lexical processing of words that are more often encountered in a language) emerge during fixations, which is not the case for monocular reading (Jainta, Blythe, & Liversedge, 2014). A potential contributor to this benefit is the reduced contrast in monocular reading: reduced text contrasts in binocular reading are known to slow down reading and word identification (Reingold & Rayner, 2006). To investigate whether contrast reduction mediates the binocular advantage, we first replicated increased reading time and nullified frequency effects for monocular reading (Experiment 1). Next, we reduced the contrast for binocular but whole sentences to 70% (Weber-contrast); this reading condition resembled monocular reading, but found no effect on reading speed and word identification (Experiment 2). A reasonable conclusion, therefore, was that a reduction in contrast is not the (primary) factor that mediates less efficient lexical processing under monocular reading. In a third experiment (Experiment 3) we reduced the sentence contrast to 40% and the pattern of results showed that, globally, reading was slowed down but clear word frequency effects were present in the data. Thus, word identification processes during reading (i.e., the word frequency effect) were qualitatively different in monocular reading compared with effects observed when text was read with substantially reduced contrast. (PsycINFO Database Record

Humans have two, frontally placed eyes and during reading oculomotor and sensory processes are needed to combine the two inputs into a unified percept of the text. Generally, slight vergence errors, i.e., fixation disparities, occur but do not cause double vision since disparate retinal inputs fall into Panum's fusional area, that is, a range of disparity wherein sensory fusion of the two retinal images is achieved. In this study, we report benchmark data with respect to the mean magnitude and range of vertical compared to horizontal fixation disparities for natural reading. Our data clearly fit to an elliptical pattern of Panum's fusional area that corresponds with theoretical estimates. Furthermore, when we examined disparity-driven vergence adjustments during fixations by comparing monocular with binocular reading conditions, we found that only horizontal fixation disparities increased significantly under conditions of monocular stimulation. Also, no significant vertical fine-tuning (vergence adjustment) was observed for vergence eye movements during reading fixations. Thus, horizontal and vertical fixation disparities and vergence adjustments during reading showed quite different characteristics, and this dissociation is directly related to the functional role of vergence adjustments: vertical fusion - and vertical vergence - subserve the maintenance of a single percept and stereopsis by keeping the eyes in register and allowing for horizontal fusional processes to successfully operate over a vertically aligned input. A reliable and stable vertical alignment is, thus, a pre-requisite over which horizontal fusional responses (and depth perception) can work most efficiently - even in a task like reading.

Reading comes with a clear binocular advantage, expressed in shorter fixation times and fewer regressions in binocular relative to monocular visual presentations. Little is known, however, about whether the cost associated with monocular viewing derives primarily from the encoding of foveal information or in obtaining a preview benefit from upcoming parafoveal text. In the present sentence reading eye tracking experiment, the authors used a novel dichoptic binocular gaze-contingent moving window technique to selectively manipulate the amount of text made available to the reader both binocularly and monocularly in the fovea and parafovea on a fixation-by-fixation basis. This technique allowed the authors to quantify disruption to reading caused by prevention of binocular fusion during direct fixation of words and parafoveal preprocessing of upcoming text. Sentences were presented (a) binocularly; (b) monocularly; (c) with monocular text to the left of fixation; (d) with monocular text to the right of fixation; or (e) with all words other than the fixated word presented binocularly. A robust binocular advantage occurred for average fixation duration and regressions. Also, while there was a limited cost associated with monocular foveal processing, the restriction of parafoveal processing to monocular information was particularly disruptive. The findings demonstrate the critical importance of a unified binocular input for the efficient preprocessing text to the right of fixation. (PsycINFO Database Record

During reading, binocular visual input results in superior performance and is particularly important in the pre-processing of parafoveal text prior to direct fixation. It is not yet clear whether binocular vision in the parafovea is necessary for accurate saccadic targeting, or for efficient pre-processing of upcoming text, prior to direct fixation. In the present sentence reading experiment, we used a dichoptic gaze-contingent moving window paradigm in order to establish 1) how much parafoveal binocular input is necessary for fluent reading and 2) which aspect of parafoveal processing is more reliant on binocular vision. Eye movement measures revealed that reading was disrupted unless word N + 1 was entirely binocular in the parafovea, though no additional benefit was observed when word N + 2 was also binocular. Additionally, while fixation durations and reading times were clearly affected by the manipulation, similarly pronounced changes in binocular saccadic parameters such as accuracy, speed, amplitude and velocity were not observed. We concluded that the disruption to reading caused by presenting monocular text to the right of fixation cannot be attributed to difficulties in targeting binocular saccacdes, but instead results from a decreased efficiency in the pre-processing of parafoveal text. These results provide further demonstration for the importance of binocular vision during written text processing.