Parafoveal versus foveal N400s dissociate spreading activation from contextual fit

Kretzschmar, Franziska; Bornkessel-­Schlesewsky, Ina; Schlesewsky, Matthias

doi:10.1097/wnr.0b013e328332c4f4

Cited by 72 publications

(87 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies using a similar task resulted in mixed results (Baccino and Manunta, 2005;Simola, Holmqvist, & Lindgren, 2009), however they only analyzed the early latencies previous to the N400 component. Our results are consistent with data obtained in sentence reading with the flanker-word RSVP paradigm (Barber et al, 2010(Barber et al, , 2012(Barber et al, , 2013Li et al, 2015) and with one FRP experiment that reported parafoveal N400 effects during sentence reading (Kretzschmar et al, 2009). Even when the ERPs showed a clear parafovea-on-fovea effect, EM measures in the present experiment were not sensitive to our experimental manipulation.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…To sum up, whereas with EM data parafovea-on-fovea effects and preview semantic effects have not been firmly established (Schotter et al, 2012), ERPs have shown these effects using a paradigm that prevents eye movements and displays the stimuli with constant presentation times (Barber et al, 2010(Barber et al, , 2012(Barber et al, , 2013Li et al, 2015). Co-registration of EEG and EM has also led to mixed results, with some studies reporting parafovea-on-fovea effects (Baccino & Manunta;Kretzschmar et al, 2009) and others that do not (Simola et al, 2009;Dimigen et al 2011Dimigen et al , 2012). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Semantic parafoveal-on-foveal effects and preview benefits in reading: Evidence from Fixation Related Potentials

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During reading parafoveal information can affect the processing of the word currently fixated (parafovea-on-fovea effect) and words perceived parafoveally can facilitate their subsequent processing when they are fixated on (preview effect). We investigated parafoveal processing by simultaneously recording eye movements and EEG measures. Participants read word pairs that could be semantically associated or not. Additionally, the boundary paradigm allowed us to carry out the same manipulation on parafoveal previews that were displayed until reader's gaze moved to the target words. Event Related Potentials time-locked to the prime-preview presentation showed a parafovealon-foveal N400 effect. Fixation Related Potentials time locked to the saccade offset showed an N400 effect related to the prime-target relationship. Furthermore, this later effect interacted with the semantic manipulation of the previews, supporting a semantic preview benefit. These results demonstrate that at least under optimal conditions foveal and parafoveal information can be simultaneously processed and integrated.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Semantic parafoveal-on-foveal effects and preview benefits in reading: Evidence from Fixation Related Potentials

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When the sentences were presented for natural reading, the ERPs time-locked to fixation on the target word also revealed a robust predictability effect that was again highly similar in amplitude and scalp distribution to the N400 during SVP. Importantly, relative to SVP the onset of the N400 in natural reading was advanced by more than 100 ms, a result that is reminiscent of the findings by Kretzschmar et al (2009) with semantic anomalies. Moreoever, with the boundary paradigm, which denies preview to the upcoming word by masking we could demonstrate that the early onset of the N400 in natural reading is in fact due to the parafoveal information available in natural reading (Dimigen et al, 2008).…”

Section: Co-registration Of Ems and Eegsupporting

confidence: 52%

“…In a later study, Kretzschmar, Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, and Schlesewsky (2009) used the same sentence material, but had subjects read the sentences during normal left-to-right reading while they collected both EEG and EMs. To avoid eye movement artifacts, Kretzschmar et al constrained the analysis to electrodes close to the vertex, which are not strongly influenced by horizontal saccades.…”

Section: Co-registration Of Ems and Eegmentioning

confidence: 99%

Eye movements and brain electric potentials during reading

Kliegl

Dambacher

Dimigen

et al. 2011

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The development of theories and computational models of reading requires an understanding of processing constraints, in particular of timelines related to word recognition and oculomotor control. Timelines of word recognition are usually determined with event-related potentials (ERPs) recorded under conditions of serial visual presentation (SVP) of words; timelines of oculomotor control are derived from parameters of eye movements (EMs) during natural reading.We describe two strategies to integrate these approaches. One is to collect ERPs and EMs in separate SVP and natural reading experiments for the same experimental material (but different subjects).The other strategy is to co-register EMs and ERPs during natural reading from the same subjects.Both strategies yield data that allow us to determine how lexical properties influence ERPs (e.g., the N400 component) and EMs (e.g., fixation durations) across neighboring words. We review our recent research on the effects of frequency and predictability of words on both EM and ERP measures with reference to current models of eye-movement control during reading. Results are in support of the proposition that lexical access is distributed across several fixations and across brain-electric potentials measured on neighboring words.Eye movements and ERP during reading 3

show abstract

“…Certainly, even with a normal presentation rate, the RSVP procedure remains artificial and can only approximate natural reading where subjects move their eyes freely across sentences at their own pace (cf., Ditman et al, 2007;Nieuwland & Van Berkum, 2006 ; see also Baccino & Manunta, 2005;Dimigen et al, 2009;Dimigen, Kliegl, & Sommer, in press;Hutzler, Braun, Vo, Engl, Hofmann, Dambacher et al, 2007;Kretzschmar, Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, & Schlesewsky, 2009;Kliegl et al, 2012;Simola, Holmqvist, & Lindgren, 2009). There is reason to believe that this technique has the potential to provide novel insights not only into the timeline of word recognition but into visual perception in general.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulus onset asynchrony and the timeline of word recognition: Event-related potentials during sentence reading

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Article in press in Neuropsychologia [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.04.011] Please note that this unproofed preprint may be subject to minor changes. [May 5, 2012] SOA and the Timeline of Word Recognition 2 AbstractThree ERP experiments examined the effect of word presentation rate (i.e., stimulus onset asynchrony, SOA) on the time course of word frequency and predictability effects in sentence reading. In Experiments 1 and 2, sentences were presented word-by-word in the screen center at an SOA of 700 and 490 ms, respectively. While these rates are typical for psycholinguistic ERP research, natural reading happens at a considerably faster pace. Accordingly, Experiment 3 employed a near-normal SOA of 280 ms, which approximated the rate of normal reading. Main results can be summarized as follows: (1) The onset latency of early frequency effects decreases gradually with increasing presentation rates. (2) An early interaction between top-down and bottom-up processing is observed only under a nearnormal SOA. (3) N400 predictability effects occur later and are smaller at a near-normal (i.e., high) presentation rate than at the lower rates commonly used in ERP experiments. (4) ERP morphology is different at the shortest compared to longer SOAs. Together, the results point to a special role of a near-normal presentation rate for visual word recognition and therefore suggest that SOA should be taken into account in research of natural reading.

show abstract

Parafoveal versus foveal N400s dissociate spreading activation from contextual fit

Cited by 72 publications

References 23 publications

Semantic parafoveal-on-foveal effects and preview benefits in reading: Evidence from Fixation Related Potentials

Semantic parafoveal-on-foveal effects and preview benefits in reading: Evidence from Fixation Related Potentials

Eye movements and brain electric potentials during reading

Stimulus onset asynchrony and the timeline of word recognition: Event-related potentials during sentence reading

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About