Rethinking parafoveal processing in reading: Serial-attention models can explain semantic preview benefit and N+2 preview effects

Abstract

During reading, some information about the word to the right of fixation in the parafovea is typically acquired prior to that word being fixated. Although some degree parafoveal processing is uncontroversial, its precise nature and extent are unclear. For example, can it advance up to the level of semantic processing? Additionally, can it extend across more than two spatially adjacent words? Affirmative answers to either of these questions would seemingly be problematic for serial-attention models of eye-movement control in reading, which maintain that attention is allocated to only one word at a time (see Reichle, 2011). However, in this paper we report simulation results using one such model, E-Z Reader (Reichle, Pollatsek, Fisher, & Rayner, 1998), to examine the two preceding questions. These results suggest the existence of both semantic preview and N+2 preview effects, indicating that they are not incompatible with serial-attention models. We discuss the implications of these findings for models of eye-movement control in reading and provide a new theoretical framework for conceptualizing parafoveal processing during reading and its influence on eye movement behaviour.

Keywords:

• Semantic preview benefit
• N+2 preview benefit
• Models of eye movement control
• Reading

Notes

¹ Rayner and Schotter (2013) reported fully significant semantic preview benefit effects in later measures (e.g., go-past time) for target words with the first letter capitalized (as in German), but since such measures reflect postlexical processing they may not indicate semantic preview benefit, per se. They also found a hint of semantic preview benefit in earlier measures, such as gaze duration- but only if the preview/target was capitalized.

² Although our finding that the probability of observing N+2 preview in Simulation 2 (M = 0.20) was greater than the probability of observing semantic preview of word N+1 in Simulation 1 (M = 0.02) might appear to be in error, it is due to the fact that, in Simulation 1, the lexical properties of word N+1 were selected to make the word as difficult as possible to process, thereby minimizing the amount of observed semantic preview. In contrast, in Simulation 2, the lexical properties of word N+1 (which modulated the likelihood of previewing word N+2) were manipulated, often affording very rapid processing of word N+1 and thus substantial preview of word N+2.

³ A nonword that is an orthographic neighbour of a real word (e.g., sorp) should be excluded from this consideration because it may be coerced by the word identification system into its word equivalent (e.g., song) due to the lower fidelity visual information entering the system during preview.

Additional information

Funding

The work described in this paper was supported by the Atkinson fund at UCSD and grant HD065829.