Attention and the identification of parafoveal words in school-age children and adults

Siéroff, Éric; Riva, M.

doi:10.1016/j.jneuroling.2011.01.003

Cited by 13 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 78 publications

(92 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Visual search for words became more efficient in both the literal and categorical search tasks both because older adolescents gazed less often at non-target words during the search and because they could reject non-target words more expeditiously once they were fixated. This supports the assumption that the progressive automation of word decoding facilitates the rejection of non-target words and makes more mental resources available for parafoveal/peripheral word processing (Siéroff and Riva, 2011) and top-down guidance within word lists. In addition, the lexical quality hypothesis (Perfetti, 1992, 2007; Verhoeven and Perfetti, 2011; Verhoeven et al, 2011) states that the acquisition of word decoding is accompanied by an experience-related increase in the lexical quality of word representations within semantic memory, which would go on during the whole adolescence and through to adulthood.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

“…The shortening of gaze durations observed between fifth and seventh grade may reflect the acquisition of fluent word decoding abilities by sixth grade (Vellutino et al, 1981; Verhoeven and van Leeuwe, 2008; Verhoeven et al, 2011). The reduction of the number of gazes may correspond to an increased ability to process word features in the parafoveal/peripheral visual field (Perfetti, 2007; Siéroff and Riva, 2011; Verhoeven and Perfetti, 2011), as already suggested for the literal task (see discussion of Experiment 1).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 55%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Adolescents’ Developing Sensitivity to Orthographic and Semantic Cues During Visual Search for Words

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two eye-tracking experiments were conducted to assess the influence of words either looking like the target word (orthographic distractors) or semantically related to the target word (semantic distractors) on visual search for words within lists by adolescents of 11, 13, and 15 years of age. In Experiment 1 (literal search task), participants saw the target word before the search (e.g., “raven”), whereas in Experiment 2 (categorical task) the target word was only defined by its semantic category (e.g., “bird”). In both experiments, participants’ search times decreased from fifth to ninth grade, both because older adolescents gazed less often at non-target words during the search and because they could reject non-target words more quickly once they were fixated. Progress in visual search efficiency was associated with a large increase in word identification skills, which were a strong determinant of average gaze durations and search times for the categorical task, but much less for the literal task. In the literal task, the presence of orthographic or semantic distractors in the list increased search times for all age groups. In the categorical task, the impact of semantic distractor words was stronger than in the literal task because participants needed to gaze at the semantic distractors longer than at the other words before rejecting them. Altogether, the data support the assumption that the progressive automation of word decoding up until the age of 12 and the better quality of older adolescents’ lexical representations facilitate a flexible use of both the perceptual and semantic features of words for top-down guidance within the displays. In particular, older adolescents were better prepared to aim at or reject words without gazing at them directly. Finally, the overall similar progression of the maturation of single word visual search processes and that of more real-life information search within complex verbal documents suggests that the young adolescents’ difficulties in searching the Web effectively could be due to their insufficiently developed lexical representations and word decoding abilities.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 55%

Adolescents’ Developing Sensitivity to Orthographic and Semantic Cues During Visual Search for Words

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sié roff and Riva (2011) provide an argument in favor of the attentional bias theory, as they show the same larger distractor effect on LVF words than on RVF words in young children and adults, although the effect of the distractor is globally much stronger in children indicating less automatic reading. If the asymmetric distractor effect was explained by automatic word processing of the left hemisphere, then one would expect a greater asymmetric distractor effect in adults for whom reading is more automatic.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…A first attentional effect refers to the fact that when a word and a distractor are simultaneously presented in opposite visual fields, word identification is more impaired by presentation of the distractor to the RVF (i.e., the visual field in which the attention is mainly allocated) than to the LVF (Sié roff & Urbanski, 2002;Sié roff & Riva, 2011). Interestingly, such distractor effect is reversed when both the word and the distractor were presented in foveal vision, attached to each other in such a way that the word was presented to the left or to the right of the fixation position (Van der Haegen & Brysbaert, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of saccade preparation in lateralized word recognition: Evidence for the attentional bias theory

et al. 2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Studies using the spatial-cueing paradigm and visual halffield presentation have demonstrated a larger cueing effect (difference between a condition in which the cue is in the same location as the word and a condition in which the cue is in the opposite location) for LVF than for RVF words (Ducrot & Grainger, 2007;Gatheron & Siéroff, 1999;Mondor & Bryden, 1992;Nicholls & Wood, 1998), and often no cueing effect at all for the RVF words (e.g., Mondor & Bryden, 1992;Nicholls & Wood, 1998). Both the attentional-bias and attentional-advantage hypotheses can explain the cueing effect asymmetry (Siéroff & Riva, 2011), but only the latter can explain the lack of a cueing effect in the RVF.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Lack of visual field asymmetries for spatial cueing in reading parafoveal Chinese characters

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two experiments, we investigated whether visual field (VF) asymmetries of spatial cueing are involved in reading parafoveal Chinese characters. These characters are different from linearly arranged alphabetic words in that they are logograms that are confined to a constant, square-shaped area and are composed of only a few radicals. We observed a cueing effect, but it did not vary with the VF in which the Chinese character was presented, regardless of whether the cue validity (the ratio of validly to invalidly cued targets) was 1:1 or 7:3. These results suggest that VF asymmetries of spatial cueing do not affect the reading of parafoveal Chinese characters, contrary to the reading of alphabetic words. The mechanisms of spatial attention in reading parafoveal English-like words and Chinese characters are discussed.

show abstract

Attention and the identification of parafoveal words in school-age children and adults

Cited by 13 publications

References 78 publications

Adolescents’ Developing Sensitivity to Orthographic and Semantic Cues During Visual Search for Words

Adolescents’ Developing Sensitivity to Orthographic and Semantic Cues During Visual Search for Words

The role of saccade preparation in lateralized word recognition: Evidence for the attentional bias theory

Lack of visual field asymmetries for spatial cueing in reading parafoveal Chinese characters

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About