Time Course of Linguistic Information Extraction From Consecutive Words During Eye Fixations in Reading.

Abstract

Sequential attention shift models of reading predict that an attended (typically fixated) word must be recognized before useful linguistic information can be obtained from the following (parafoveal) word. These models also predict that linguistic information is obtained from a parafoveal word immediately prior to a saccade toward it. To test these assumptions, sentences were constructed with a critical pretarget-target word sequence, and the temporal availability of the (parafoveal) target preview was manipulated while the pretarget word was fixated. Target viewing effects, examined as a function of prior target visibility, revealed that extraction of linguistic target information began 70-140 ms after the onset of pretarget viewing. Critically, acquisition of useful linguistic information from a target was not confined to the ending period of pretarget viewing. These results favor theoretical conceptions in which there is some temporal overlap in the linguistic processing of a fixated and parafoveally visible word during reading. Keywordsreading; attention; parafoveal preview; alternating case; parallel processing Written language consists of a spatially ordered sequence of symbols, many of which are concurrently available to a reader. High-acuity vision is confined to a relatively small retinal area at any point in time that roughly corresponds to the fovea and immediately adjacent parafovea, so that only a limited amount of visual detail can be discerned when the eyes gaze at (fixate) a particular text location. Hence, readers need to move the eyes at or near a word to recognize it. Normal reading thus requires the development of a task-specific skill, that is, the dynamic coordination of eye movement (saccade) programming with successful visual word recognition and text comprehension.Effects of this coordination are evident in the general progression of eye movements with word order and in robust effects of a word's spatial and linguistic properties on its viewing pattern (see Kennedy, 2004, andRayner, 1998, for reviews). The coordination of eye movement programming with linguistic processes does not require, however, that the eyes are always moved from one word to the next. Although interword saccades to consecutive words Copyright 2005 by the American Psychological AssociationCorrespondence concerning this article should be addressed to Albrecht W. Inhoff, Department of Psychology, Binghamton University, State University of New York, Binghamton, NY 13902-6000. E-mail: E-mail: inhoff@binghamton.edu. NIH Public Access NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscriptin the text are the most common type of eye movement during skilled reading, there is a relatively large proportion of other saccades (Hogaboam, 1983) that move the eyes to a different location within the same word (refixations), to a word beyond the next word in the text (skipping), or to a previously read word (interword regressions). The frequency with which these saccades are executed is a function of word and...

Parafoveal processing in reading

“…10 They have been highly successful in the sense that they have generated a considerable amount of research to test aspects of each model (for examples, see Inhoff et al, 2005;Inhoff, Greenberg, Solomon, & Wang, 2009;Inhoff, Radach, & Eiter, 2006;Inhoff, Starr, & Shindler 2000;Miellet, Sparrow, & Sereno, 2007;Pollatsek, Reichle, & Rayner, 2006aReingold & Rayner, 2006;Reingold, Yang, & Rayner, 2010;Risse & Kliegl, 2011;Warren, White, & Reichle, 2009) and some counterintuitive findings have been explained (Pollatsek, Juhasz, Reichle, Machacek, & Rayner, 2008) by appealing to aspects of a model. It is probably fair to say that more research has been generated to test predictions of E-Z Reader than SWIFT, perhaps due to the fact that the model is highly transparent.…”

Preview benefit and parafoveal-on-foveal effects from word n + 2.

“…The differences between these positions are much more graded than this simple dichotomy suggests (for recent presentations see, e.g., Engbert, Nuthmann, Richter, & Kliegl, 2005;Inhoff, Eiter, & Radach, 2005;Kliegl, Nuthmann, & Engbert, 2006;Kliegl, 2007;McDonald, Carpenter & Shillcock, 2005;Pollatsek, Reichle, & Rayner, 2006;Pynte & Kennedy, 2006).…”

Eye Movements During Mindless Reading

“…It is perhaps not too surprising that both classes of theory explain a wide range of phenomena associated with readers' eye movements, with theorists' attempts to use empirical data to adjudicate between the theories often producing equivocal results (cf. Inhoff, Eiter, & Radach, 2005;Pollatsek, Reichle, & Rayner, 2006).…”