1981
DOI: 10.3758/bf03333690
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Eye movements and identifying words in parafoveal vision

Abstract: Subjects either named or made lexical decisions about words presented in parafoveal vision. In one condition, subjects were required to maintain fixation, and in another condition, they were allowed to make eye movements. In the no eye movement condition, performance decreased as the stimulus was presented further from fixation. Words could be identified more quickly when eye movements were made than when they were not. The experiments also indicated that holding fixation takes up a certain amount of processin… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

10
78
0
1

Year Published

1987
1987
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
4
4
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 87 publications
(89 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
10
78
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…A slower RSVP rate was used here due to the first author’s impression that the rate used by Metusalem et al (2012) did not allow adequate time for reliable recognition of the laterally presented target words. This aligns with research showing that word recognition is slower for words presented peripheral to the point of fixation (Bouma, 1978; Rayner & Morrison, 1981; Schiepers, 1980). …”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 89%
“…A slower RSVP rate was used here due to the first author’s impression that the rate used by Metusalem et al (2012) did not allow adequate time for reliable recognition of the laterally presented target words. This aligns with research showing that word recognition is slower for words presented peripheral to the point of fixation (Bouma, 1978; Rayner & Morrison, 1981; Schiepers, 1980). …”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 89%
“…In our view, attentional theories of eye movement control in reading have seriously underestimated the time it takes to identify a parafoveal word, although Rayner himself pointed to the fact that word identification times increase 90 nms per degree of eccentricity (Rayner and Morrison, 1981; see also Schiepers, 1980). This value should be added to the 60 ms stimulus transfer time from the eyes to the brain and the 100 ms needed for saccade programming (McConkie, 1983), so that it is virtually impossible for a parafoveal word beginning at an eccentricity of three letter positions to det-ermine the size of the upcoming saccade, unless the fixation lasts considerably longer than 60 + 100 + 90 = 250 ms. What is possible, however, is that the system responsible for the programming of the next saccade at a certain point in time (i.e., before the programming of the saccade starts) estimates the likelihood that the parafoveal word will be recognized within the next 100 ms.…”
Section: Fleshing Out the Modelmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…At the same time, there is evidence in the literature that processing of parafoveal words occurs at least up to a lexical level (Rayner & Pollatsek, 1989;Rayner & Balota, 1989;Rayner & Morisson, 1981). Both naming time and gaze duration (or total time the eyes spend on the word) are shorter when the word was visible in parafoveal vision before being ®xated than when it was masked.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%