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

REFERENCES

• Angele, B., & Rayner, K. (2011). Parafoveal processing of word n+ 2 during reading: Do the preceding words matter? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 1210–1220. doi:10.1037/a0023096
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angele, B., Slattery, T. J., Yang, J., Kliegl, R., & Rayner, K. (2008). Parafoveal processing in reading: Manipulating n + 1 and n + 2 previews simultaneously. Visual Cognition, 16, 697–707. doi:10.1080/13506280802009704
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balota, D. A., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (1985). The interaction of contextual constraints and parafoveal visual information in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 364–390. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(85)90013-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bicknell, K., & Levy, R. (2012). The utility of modelling word identification from visual input within models of eye movements in reading. Visual Cognition, 20, 422–456. doi:10.1080/13506285.2012.668144
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108, 204–256. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.1.204
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drieghe, D., Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2005). Word skipping during reading revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 954–969. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.31.5.954
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehrlich, S. F., & Rayner, K. (1981). Contextual effects on word perception and eye movements during reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 641–655. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90220-6
   Google Scholar
• Engbert, R., & Kliegl, R. (2011). Parallel graded attention models of reading. In S. P. Liversedge, I. D. Gilchrist, & S. Everling (Eds.), Oxford handbook on eye movements (pp. 787–800). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Engbert, R., Longtin, A., & Kliegl, R. (2002). A dynamical model of saccade generation in reading based on spatially distributed lexical processing. Vision Research, 42, 612–636. doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(01)00301-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engbert, R., Nuthmann, A., Richter, E., & Kliegl, R. (2005). SWIFT: A dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. Psychological Review, 112, 777–813. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.112.4.777
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitzsimmons, G., & Drieghe, D. (2013). How fast can predictability effects influence word skipping during reading? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1054–1063. doi:10.1037/a0030909
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Francis, W. N., & Kucera, H. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage: Lexicon and grammar. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• Henderson, J. M., & Ferreira, F. (1990). Effects of foveal processing difficulty on the perceptual span in reading: Implications for attention and eye movement control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 417–429. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.16.3.417
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hohenstein, S., & Kliegl, R. (2014). Semantic preview benefit during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 166–190.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hohenstein, S., Laubrock, J., & Kliegl, R. (2010). Semantic preview benefit in eye movements during reading: A parafoveal fast-priming study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 1150–1170. doi:10.1037/a0020233
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyönä, J., Bertram, R., & Pollatsek, A. (2004). Do frequency characteristics of nonfixated words influence the processing of fixated words during reading? European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 104–127. doi:10.1080/09541440340000132
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennison, S. M., & Clifton, C. (1995). Determinants of parafoveal preview benefit in high and low working memory capacity readers: Implications for eye movement control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 68–81. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.21.1.68
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kliegl, R., Grabner, E., Rolfs, M., & Engbert, R. (2004). Length, frequency, and predictability effects of words on eye movements in reading. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 262–284. doi:10.1080/09541440340000213
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kliegl, R., Risse, S., & Laubrock, J. (2007). Preview benefit and parafoveal-on-foveal effects from word N+2. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 1250–1255. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.33.5.1250
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald, S. A. (2006). Parafoveal preview benefit in reading is only obtained from the saccade goal. Vision Research, 46, 4416–4424. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2006.08.027
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray, W. S., Rayner, K., & Wakeford, L. (2013). Preview benefit or preview cost? Paper presented at the 17th European conference on Eye Movements, Lund, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Pollatsek, A., Reichle, E. D., & Rayner, K. (2006). Tests of the E-Z Reader model: Exploring the interface between cognition and eye-movement control. Cognitive Psychology, 52, 1–56. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.06.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radach, R., Inhoff, A. W., Glover, L., & Vorstius, C. (2013). Contextual constraint and N+2 preview effects in reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 619–633. doi:10.1080/17470218.2012.761256
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, K. (1975). The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 65–81. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(75)90005-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, K. (2009a). The Thirty Fifth Sir Frederick Bartlett Lecture: Eye movements and attention during reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1457–1506. doi:10.1080/17470210902816461
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, K. (2009b). Eye movements in reading: Models and data. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 2, 1–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, K., Ashby, J., Pollatsek, A., & Reichle, E. D. (2004). The effects of frequency and predictability on eye fixations in reading: Implications for the E-Z Reader model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 720–732. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.30.4.720
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, K., Balota, D. A., & Pollatsek, A. (1986). Against parafoveal semantic processing during eye fixations in reading. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 40, 473–483. doi:10.1037/h0080111
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, K., Juhasz, B. J., & Brown, S. J. (2007). Do readers obtain preview benefit from word n+2? A test of serial attention shift versus distributed lexical processing models of eye movement control in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 230–245. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.33.1.230
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, K., & Schotter, E. R. (2013). Semantic preview benefit in reading English: The effect of initial letter capitalization. Manuscript under review.
   Google Scholar
• Rayner, K., Schotter, E. R., & Drieghe, D. (2014). Lack of semantic parafoveal preview benefit revisited. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, in press.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rayner K., Slattery, T. J., Drieghe, D., & Liversedge, S. P. (2011). Eye movements and word skipping during reading: Effects of word length and predictability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 514–528. doi:10.1037/a0020990
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, K., & Well, A. D. (1996). Effects of contextual constraint on eye movements in reading: A further examination. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 3, 504–509. doi:10.3758/BF03214555
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, K., Well, A. D., Pollatsek, A., & Bertera, J. H. (1982). The availability of useful information to the right of fixation in reading. Perception and Psychophysics, 31, 537–550. doi:10.3758/BF03204186
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reichle, E. D. (2011). Serial attention models of reading. In S. P. Liversedge, I. D. Gilchrist, & S. Everling (Eds.), Oxford handbook on eye movements (pp. 767–786). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Reichle, E. D., & Laurent, P. A. (2006). Using reinforcement learning to understand the emergence of “intelligent” eye-movement behavior during reading. Psychological Review, 113, 390–408. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.113.2.390
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reichle, E. D., Liversedge, S. P., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (2009). Encoding multiple words simultaneously in reading is implausible. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 115–119. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2008.12.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reichle, E. D., Pollatsek, A., Fisher, D. L., & Rayner, K. (1998). Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. Psychological Review, 105, 125–157. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.105.1.125
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reichle, E. D., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (2012). Using E-Z Reader to simulate eye movements in non-reading tasks: A unified framework for understanding the eye-mind link. Psychological Review, 119, 155–185. doi:10.1037/a0026473
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reichle, E. D., Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2003). The E-Z Reader model of eye movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26, 445–476. doi:10.1017/S0140525X03000104
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reichle, E. D., & Reingold, E. M. (2013). Neurophysiological constraints on the eye-mind link. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7(361), doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00361
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Reichle, E. D., Warren, T., & McConnell, K. (2009). Using E-Z Reader to model the effects of higher-level language processing on eye movements during reading. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 16, 1–21. doi:10.3758/PBR.16.1.1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reingold, E. M., Reichle, E. D., Glaholt, M. G., & Sheridan, H. (2012). Direct lexical control of eye movements in reading: Evidence from survival analysis of fixation durations. Cognitive Psychology, 65, 177–206. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.03.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Risse, S., Hohenstein, S., Kliegl, R., & Engbert, R. (2014). A theoretical analysis of the perceptual span based on SWIFT simulations of the n+2 boundary paradigm. Visual Cognition, 22(3), 283–308 doi: 10.1080/13506285.2014.881444
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Risse, S., & Kliegl, R. (2011). Adult age differences in the perceptual span during reading. Psychology and Aging, 26, 451–460.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Risse, S., & Kliegl, R. ( in press). Dissociating preview validity and preview difficulty in parafoveal processing of word n+1 during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salvucci, D. D. (2001). An integrated model of eye movements and visual encoding. Cognitive Systems Research, 1, 201–220. doi:10.1016/S1389-0417(00)00015-2
   Google Scholar
• Schad, D. J., & Engbert, R. (2012). The zoom lens of attention: Simulating shuffled versus normal text reading using the SWIFT model. Visual Cognition, 20, 391–421. doi:10.1080/13506285.2012.670143
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schilling, H. E. H., Rayner, K., & Chumbley, J. I. (1998). Comparing naming, lexical decision, and eye fixation times: Word frequency effects and individual differences. Memory and Cognition, 26, 1270–1281. doi:10.3758/BF03201199
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schotter, E. R. (2013). Synonyms provide preview benefit in English but other semantic relationships do not. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 619–633. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2013.09.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schotter, E. R., Angele, B., & Rayner, K. (2012). Parafoveal processing in reading. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 74, 5–35. doi:10.3758/s13414-011-0219-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 525–568. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.523
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, W. L. (1953). Cloze procedure: A new tool for measuring readability. Journalism Quarterly, 30, 415–433.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, S. J., Rayner, K., & Liversedge, S. P. (2005). Eye movements and the modulation of parafoveal processing by foveal processing difficulty: A reexamination. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12, 891–896. doi:10.3758/BF03196782
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yan, M., Kliegl, R., Shu, H., Pan, J., & Zhou, X. (2010). Parafoveal load of word N+1 modulates preprocessing effectiveness of word N+2 in Chinese reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 1669–1676. doi:10.1037/a0019329
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yan, M., Richter, E. M., Shu, H., & Kliegl, R. (2009). Readers of Chinese extract semantic information from parafoveal words. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 16, 561–566. doi:10.3758/PBR.16.3.561
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, J. (2013). Preview effects of plausibility and character order in reading Chinese transposed words: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Research in Reading, 36, S18–S34. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2013.01553.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, J., Rayner, K., Li, N., & Wang, S. (2012). Is preview benefit from word n+ 2 a common effect in reading Chinese? Evidence from eye movements. Reading and Writing, 25(5), 1079–1091. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2013.01553.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, J., Wang, S., Tong, X., & Rayner, K. (2010). Semantic and plausibility effects on preview benefit during eye fixations in Chinese reading. Reading and Writing, 25, 1031–1052. doi:10.1007/s11145-010-9281-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zola, D. (1984). Redundancy and word perception during reading. Perception and Psychophysics, 36, 277–284. doi:10.3758/BF03206369
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar