2018
DOI: 10.1017/9781108233279
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Eye-Tracking

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 163 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 154 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, skipping rate, first-fixation duration, and gaze duration are eye-movement measures often argued to reflect earlier, more automatic, processing stages during natural reading, such as word recognition and lexical access. Regressing back to a previous part of the sentence and the amount of time spent rereading before proceeding onward (probability of regressions, regression-path duration, and total reading times) are hypothesized to reflect later processes which are more controlled, such as word–context integration or sentence-level processing (Clifton et al, 2007; Conklin et al, 2018; Liversedge et al, 1998; Staub, 2011, 2015).…”
Section: The Present Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, skipping rate, first-fixation duration, and gaze duration are eye-movement measures often argued to reflect earlier, more automatic, processing stages during natural reading, such as word recognition and lexical access. Regressing back to a previous part of the sentence and the amount of time spent rereading before proceeding onward (probability of regressions, regression-path duration, and total reading times) are hypothesized to reflect later processes which are more controlled, such as word–context integration or sentence-level processing (Clifton et al, 2007; Conklin et al, 2018; Liversedge et al, 1998; Staub, 2011, 2015).…”
Section: The Present Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To our surprise, our data indicate that the processing of sentences referring to the antecedent in the syntactic position of an object incurs an additional processing cost, regardless of the pronoun-antecedent match. Interestingly, this effect was only revealed in the analysis of a post-critical area of interest (the spillover effect; [ 47 ]). According to the integration account [ 48 ], an increase in reading times in the post-critical area of interest reflects the cognitive load related to the sentence-level semantic integration process.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Importantly, skipping affected all conditions equally (115 = literal, 122 = figurative, and 133 = control). The skipping rate may be due to the short length of the keywords ( M = 5.63 characters), which may have led to them being processed while in parafoveal view (Conklin et al, 2018; Hyönä, 2011; Rayner, 2009), thus eliminating the need for a direct fixation.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The remaining context was identical in all three conditions. Care was taken so that a keyword 1 never occurred at a line break, avoiding fixation contamination due to the programming and execution of saccades (Conklin et al, 2018), and were of the same grammatical class (e.g., noun, verb) for each idiom in question. The sentences were of a comparable length, and keywords were placed approximately in the middle or towards the end of each sentence…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%