Semantic parafoveal processing in natural reading: Insight from fixation‐related potentials & eye movements

Abstract

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creat ive Commo ns Attri bution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Parafoveal and foveal N400 effects in natural reading: A timeline of semantic processing from fixation-related potentials

“…As expected, post-hoc comparisons confirmed that the effect was present at posterior ( b = .43, SE = .19, t = 2.3, p < .05) but not at anterior ( b = .28, SE = .19, t = 1.5, p = .129) or central scalp sites ( b = .19, SE = .19, t = 1.01, p = .309). These results confirm previous reports of occipito-temporal N1 preview validity effects in FRPs (Antúnez et al, 2022; Degno et al, 2019a; 2019b; Dimigen et al, 2012; Dimigen & Ehinger, 2021; López-Peréz et al, 2016; Niefind & Dimigen, 2016; Kornrumpf et al, 2016).…”

“…However, a reduction of the later N400 component by valid previews was reported in RSVP-flanker studies (Li et al, 2015. The effect was also found to be (marginally) significant in at least three FRP studies (Antúnez et al, 2022, Dimigen et al, 2012López-Peréz et al, 2016), but polarity-reversed in another . It is therefore possible that a main effect of preview validity contributed to the pattern of N400 amplitudes observed on the target.…”

“…Finally, a recent sentence reading study with English readers (Antúnez, Milligan, Hernández-Cabrera, Barber, & Schotter, 2022) presented words with varying plausibility as previews in the boundary paradigm and reported a parafoveal plausibility effect on FRPs, suggesting the parafoveal processing of semantic information. Although our current work differs in several regards from this work (e.g., different language and writing system, joint investigation of parafoveal and foveal effects, overlap-correction of FRPs), there are also a number of similarities between the work of Antúnez et al (2022) and the present study. We will therefore discuss the results of their study in more detail in the Discussion , together with the current findings.…”

Parafoveal words can modulate sentence meaning: Electrophysiological evidence from an RSVP‐with‐flanker task

“…The semantic parafoveal effects reported in previous FRP studies are not consistent. While some studies have found a semantic parafoveal effect (e.g., Antúnez et al, 2021Antúnez et al, , 2022Kretzschmar et al, 2009;López-Peréz et al, 2016), others did not (Dimigen et al, 2012;Simola et al, 2009). Although the current results support the existence of a semantic parafoveal congruency effect, it is worth noting that the RSVP-flankers paradigm and the reading paradigms differ in many aspects (Dimigen et al, 2011;Kornrumpf et al, 2016), such as the presence or absence of self-paced eye movements, the variability in within-word fixation locations, the possibility for dynamic reading behavior (e.g., refixations, regressions, and word skipping) and the presence or absence of transient stimulus onsets (words flashing up on the screen or being always present).…”

“…Antúnez et al (2021) reported a preview effect of semantic relatedness by using non‐cognate translations. To our knowledge, only one FRP study has tested for congruency (rather than semantic relatedness or association) effects of parafoveal words during sentence reading by using a boundary technique; specifically, Antúnez et al (2022) reported a preview effect of semantic plausibility in FRPs. Only such semantic congruency effects can inform us how semantic information is used at the global message level and reveal processes of sentence comprehension.…”