Using a dichoptic moving window presentation technique to investigate binocular advantages during reading.

Abstract

Reading comes with a clear binocular advantage, expressed in shorter fixation times and fewer regressions in binocular relative to monocular visual presentations. Little is known, however, about whether the cost associated with monocular viewing derives primarily from the encoding of foveal information or in obtaining a preview benefit from upcoming parafoveal text. In the present sentence reading eye tracking experiment, the authors used a novel dichoptic binocular gaze-contingent moving window technique to selectively manipulate the amount of text made available to the reader both binocularly and monocularly in the fovea and parafovea on a fixation-by-fixation basis. This technique allowed the authors to quantify disruption to reading caused by prevention of binocular fusion during direct fixation of words and parafoveal preprocessing of upcoming text. Sentences were presented (a) binocularly; (b) monocularly; (c) with monocular text to the left of fixation; (d) with monocular text to the right of fixation; or (e) with all words other than the fixated word presented binocularly. A robust binocular advantage occurred for average fixation duration and regressions. Also, while there was a limited cost associated with monocular foveal processing, the restriction of parafoveal processing to monocular information was particularly disruptive. The findings demonstrate the critical importance of a unified binocular input for the efficient preprocessing text to the right of fixation. (PsycINFO Database Record

Binocular coordination and return-sweep saccades among skilled adult readers

“…The proportion of alignment for each fixation population further quantifies the role of the vergence system during the reading of multiline texts. Consistent with see also Blythe et al, 2010;Blythe et al, 2006;Jainta et al, 2015;Juhasz et al, 2006;Kirkby et al, 2010;Kirkby et al, 2013;Nikolova et al, 2015;Nikolova et al, 2017Nikolova et al, , 2018, we observed more aligned than unaligned fixations for intraline reading. However, a higher proportion of fixations were unaligned following a return-sweep saccade at fixation onset.…”

“…For unaligned fixations, the majority were uncrossed, and only a small proportion were crossed. This pattern of alignment is comparable with previous research using similar stimulus conditions ( Kirkby et al, 2013;Nikolova et al, 2015;Nikolova et al, 2017Nikolova et al, , 2018Schotter, Blythe et al, 2012). The proportion of fixation alignment for each fixation population can be seen in Figure 2 as a function of line length.…”

“…The apparatus, viewing conditions, and calibration procedures were identical to those reported in prior work (e.g., Jainta, Blythe, & Liversedge, 2014;Nikolova, Jainta, Blythe, & Liversedge, 2017. Binocular eye movements were recorded using two Fourward Technologies dual-Purkinje-image eye trackers.…”

The word frequency effect during sentence reading: A linear or nonlinear effect of log frequency?

“…Finally, although the vast majority of studies that have examined word frequency effects during reading have employed monocular eye movement recordings, some have recorded binocularly (Jainta, Blythe, & Liversedge, 2014; Jainta, Nikolova, & Liversedge, 2016; Juhasz, Liversedge, White, & Rayner, 2006; Kirkby, Blythe, Drieghe, Benson, & Liversedge, 2013; Kliegl et al, 2006; Nikolova, Jainta, & Liversedge, 2016; Nikolova, Jainta, Blythe, Jones, & Liversedge, 2015). However, none of these studies restricted analyses of word frequency effects to cases for which critical words were skipped or fixated by both eyes (for similar restrictions see Kliegl et al, 2006).…”

Education and visual neuroscience: A mini‐review

“…Recently, eye‐tracking technology has been used to reveal the advantages of binocular vision in reading. By controlling the presentation of text to each eye, researchers have developed a novel saccade‐contingent display‐change technique for investigating the foveal and parafoveal processing of words during natural reading (Jainta, Blythe, & Liversedge, ; Jainta, Nikolova, & Liversedge, ; Nikolova, Jainta, Blythe, & Liversedge, , ). The integration of visual information across space and time and the contributions of binocular vision to natural reading remain areas of active research (Chen & Vroomen, ; Chen, Zhou, Müller, & Shi, ; Kramer & Yantis, ; Scott‐Samuel & Hess, ; Thunell, van der Zwaag, Ogmen, Plomp, & Herzog, ; Wallace & Scott‐Samuel, ).…”