A further examination of the lexical-processing stages hypothesized by the E-Z Reader model

Abstract

Participants' eye movements were monitored while they read sentences in which high-and lowfrequency target words were presented normally (i.e., the normal condition) or with either reduced stimulus quality (i.e., the faint condition) or alternating lower-and uppercase letters (i.e., the case-alternated condition). Both the stimulus quality and case alternation manipulations interacted with word frequency for the gaze duration measure, such that the magnitude of word frequency effects was increased relative to the normal condition. However, stimulus quality (but not case alternation) interacted with word frequency for the early fixation time measures (i.e., first fixation, single fixation), whereas case alternation (but not stimulus quality) interacted with word frequency for the later fixation time measures (i.e., total time, go-past time). We interpret this pattern of results as evidence that stimulus quality influences an earlier stage of lexical processing than does case alternation, and we discuss the implications of our results for models of eye movement control during reading.Keywords Reading . Eye movements . Case alternation . Stimulus quality . Lexical processing . Word frequency Over the past three decades, the study of eye movement control during reading has been the focus of extensive empirical and theoretical efforts (for reviews, see Rayner, 1998Rayner, , 2009 Feng, 2006). These models incorporate various assumptions and generate unique predictions that have inspired empirical tests.Of particular relevance to the present study, Reingold and Rayner (2006) tested the central assumption of the influential E-Z Reader model (Reichle, 2011;Reichle et al., 1998;Reichle, Pollatsek, & Rayner, 2012) that word identification reflects two separate stages of lexical processing. Specifically, the E-Z Reader model assumes that the initiation of the programming of a saccade to the next word (word n + 1 ) occurs prior to the completion of lexical access to the fixated word (word n ). Saccadic programming is postulated to be driven by the output of an early lexicalprocessing stage (L 1 ), which indicates that lexical access to word n is imminent. Lexical processing of word n is then completed during a subsequent stage of lexical processing (L 2 ), and the conclusion of this stage causes covert attention to shift to word n + 1 . During the interval of time between this attention shift and the launch of the word n -to-word n + 1 saccade, parafoveal processing of word n + 1 is initiated. The duration of this interval, referred to as the parafoveal preview, is expected to determine the magnitude of any processing benefit when word n + 1 is later fixated (with longer preview resulting in shorter fixations on word n + 1 ). Importantly, as was argued by Reingold (2003), the E-Z Reader model predicts that experimental manipulations that disrupt L 1 but not L 2 should influence the processing difficulty of word n without affecting the processing of word n + 1 , whereas manipulations that impact L 2 should impact wor...

An analysis of reading skill development using E-Z Reader

“…These findings suggest that the “decisions” about when to move the eyes off of a word during reading may also be influenced more by orthographic than phonological processing, and that the first stage of lexical processing in E-Z Reader (i.e., the familiarity check) might be conceptualized as being largely driven by fluency of orthographic processing (e.g., see Reingold, Sheridan, & Reichle, 2015). Although these conclusions are admittedly speculative because of the caveats that were previously discussed, they are consistent with results of eye-movement experiments showing that the duration of first-pass fixations on target words is influenced by the stimulus quality (e.g., faint vs. boldface font) of those words (Reingold & Rayner, 2006; Sheridan & Reingold, 2013). …”

Effects of aging and text-stimulus quality on the word-frequency effect during Chinese reading.

“…Such findings are important as they suggest that effects of stimulus quality and word frequency are interactive during Chinese reading and therefore affect a common stage of processing. The fixation time effects we observed, in particular, resonate with the interaction between stimulus quality and word frequency reported by Sheridan and Reingold (2013), although this effect emerged early in the eye movement record in their study, in the first fixation on target words rather than later measures such as GD or TRT. The precise reasons for this difference are yet to be established, although it may reflect the slower time-course of word identification during Chinese reading compared to alphabetic languages.…”

“…A further concern was to assess age differences in the effects of text stimulus quality. Studies with young adult readers show longer reading times for faint compared to normally presented text, both for entire sentences (Hohenstein & Kliegl, 2014;Liu, Li & Han, 2015;Jainta, Nikolova, & Liversedge, 2017;White & Staub, 2012) and words within sentences (Drieghe, 2008;Glaholt, Rayner, & Reingold, 2014;Reingold & Rayner, 2006;Sheridan & Reingold, 2013;Wang & Inhoff, 2010;White & Staub, 2012). However, few studies have examined effects of stimulus quality for older readers (Mitzner & Rogers, 2006, see also Madden, 1988;Speranza, Daneman, & Schneider, 2000), and even fewer have investigated effects in Chinese (Liu et al, 2015).…”

“…Studies of eye movements are informative about the influence of such variables during natural reading and have shown interactive patterns of results when the stimulus quality and lexical frequency of a critical word in a sentence is manipulated. For instance, Sheridan and Reingold (2013) showed initial fixation durations on critical words produced an interactive pattern of effects, with larger word frequency effects for faint compared to normally-presented words. Such findings suggest that stimulus quality can influence lexical processing as well as the early encoding of visual and orthographic features during natural reading.…”

Does text contrast mediate binocular advantages in reading?

“…Moreover, Sheridan and Reingold (2013) reported an interactive effect of reduced text contrast and word frequency, exhibited in increased processing times for low-frequency words when a single target word was presented with low contrast (40% Weber-contrast, calculated from reported luminance) within a normally presented sentence frame. Interestingly, a different pattern of results was obtained by Liu, Li and Han (2015), who found an overall additive effect of reduced stimulus quality when a target word in Chinese sentences was reduced in contrast (down to 15%; Weber-contrast, calculated from reported luminance).…”