A. Pollatsek, E. D. Reichle, and K. Rayner (2006a) argue that the critical findings inA. W. Inhoff, B. M. Eiter, and R. Radach (2005) are in general agreement with core assumptions of sequential attention shift models if additional assumptions and facts are considered. The current authors critically discuss the hypothesized time line of processing and indicate that the success of Pollatsek et al.'s simulation is predicated on a gross underestimation of the pretarget word's viewing duration in Inhoff et al. and that the actual data are difficult to reconcile with the strictly serial attention shift assumption. The authors also discuss attention shifting and saccade programming assumptions in the E-Z Reader model and conclude that these are not in harmony with research in related domains of study.
Keywordssaccade; attention; word recognition; reading In our article on the time course of extracting information from consecutive words during eye fixations in reading (Inhoff, Eiter, & Radach, 2005), we concluded that the time course of parafoveal information usage in Experiment 2 of our study favored a theoretical conception according to which extraction of linguistic information from spatially adjacent words in the text need not be strictly serial, as maintained by sequential attention shift (SAS) models of eye movement control in reading. Instead, we favored an attentional gradient conception.In their comment on our article, Pollatsek, Reichle, and Rayner (2006a) defend the strictly serial word-processing assumption. They point to theoretical shortcomings in our critical Experiment 2, notably our neglect of a 50-ms visual transmission (VT) time that is also referred to as eye-to-mind lag. They also express some methodological reservations. Critically, they present an E-Z Reader model simulation that appears to be in agreement with our Experiment 2 data once VT time is considered.In their comments on our study, Pollatsek et al. (2006a) first reiterate central theoretical claims of SAS models, including the E-Z Reader model, to clarify their position on serial processing and thus to illuminate what the controversy is about. They go on to critique several specific