Is orthographic information from multiple parafoveal words processed in parallel: An eye-tracking study.

Abstract

In the current study we investigated whether orthographic information available from 1 upcoming parafoveal word influences the processing of another parafoveal word. Across 2 experiments we used the boundary paradigm (Rayner, 1975) to present participants with an identity preview of the 2 words after the boundary (e.g., hot pan), a preview in which 2 letters were transposed between these words (e.g., hop tan), or a preview in which the same 2 letters were substituted (e.g., hob fan). We hypothesized that if these 2 words were processed in parallel in the parafovea then we may observe significant preview benefits for the condition in which the letters were transposed between words relative to the condition in which the letters were substituted. However, no such effect was observed, with participants fixating the words for the same amount of time in both conditions. This was the case both when the transposition was made between the final and first letter of the 2 words (e.g., hop tan as a preview of hot pan; Experiment 1) and when the transposition maintained within word letter position (e.g., pit hop as a preview of hit pop; Experiment 2). The implications of these findings are considered in relation to serial and parallel lexical processing during reading. Public Significance StatementThe findings of the present study suggest that readers of English only process letter information from 1 word at a time. Participants did not read any faster when 2 letters had been swapped between 2 upcoming words prior to participants looking directly at them (e.g., sit pea instead of sip tea) than when these same 2 letters had been replaced with alternative letters (e.g., six sea). These findings demonstrate that the human language processing system tends to identify words 1 at a time in serial order, rather than identifying multiple words at the same time.

Capitalization interacts with syntactic complexity.

“…However, it does at least suggest that salient visual information in the parafovea can affect eye movements through linguistic mechanisms, rather than simply by drawing attention away from the fixated word. Researchers have sometimes argued (e.g., Cutter, Drieghe, & Liversedge, 2017;Reichle, Pollatsek, & Rayner, 2006) that orthographic parafoveal-onfoveal effects are merely the result of unusual visual information popping-out from the page, with actual language processing playing very little role in the effect. The same argument cannot be made to account for the data from the current study, with our effect relying on what a visual cue signals about syntactic class and structure, as opposed to simply being salient.…”

Examining semantic parafoveal-on-foveal effects using a Stroop boundary paradigm

“…Zang, Liversedge and colleagues have proposed a possible (at least partial) solution to the impasse in the serialism/parallelism debate, via the Multi-Constituent Unit hypothesis (MCU, Zang, 2019;Zang et al, 2021; see also Cutter, Drieghe & Liversedge, 2017). According to the MCU account, if the current word n and the following word n + 1 are strongly associated and frequently used together (e.g., as in the spaced compound, teddy bear), they may be represented and stored lexically as a single multi-constituent unit (e.g., Conklin & Schmitt, 2008Shaoul & Westbury, 2011;Siyanova-Chanturia et al, 2011;Titone, & Connine, 1999;Wray, 2002;Wulff & Titone, 2014).…”

Readers detect an low-level phonological violation between two parafoveal words

“…A great deal of recent research has focussed upon the extent to which word n + 2 is processed prior to direct fixation and the factors affecting the extraction of information from word n + 2 (e.g. Angele et al, 2008;Angele & Rayner, 2011;Cutter et al, 2014;Cutter et al, 2017;Kliegl et al, 2007;Radach et al, 2013;Rayner et al, 2007;Risse & Kliegl, 2012). Studies of this issue initially presented an unclear pattern of results, with some studies finding reliable n + 2 preview effects, and others failing to find these effects.…”

“…Angele & Rayner, 2013;Brothers & Traxler, 2016;Schotter & Jia, 2016;Veldre & Andrews, 2016, 2018aWakeford & Murray, 2013) and whether readers extract information from a word further into the parafovea during reading (i.e. from word n + 2; see Angele & Rayner, 2011;Angele et al, 2008;Cutter et al, 2014;Cutter et al, 2017;Kliegl et al, 2007;Radach et al, 2013;Rayner et al, 2007;Risse & Kliegl, 2012). In the current paper we examine these two issues simultaneously, by examining whether participants' eye movement behaviour is influenced by a low-level phono-grammatical violation between word n + 1 and word n + 2 in the parafovea, such that word n + 1 was always the indefinite article in the form an, while word n + 2 was sometimes manipulated to begin with a consonant (e.g.…”