A theoretical analysis of the perceptual span based on SWIFT simulations of the n + 2 boundary paradigm

REFERENCES

• Angele, B., & Rayner, K. (2011). Parafoveal preprocessing 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., Yang, J., Kliegl, R., & Rayner, K. (2008). Parafoveal processing in reading: Manipulating n + 1 and n + 2 previews simultaneously. Visual Cognition, 16, 697–707. 10.1080/13506280802009704
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drieghe, D., Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2005). Eye movements and 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
• Drieghe, D., Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2008). Mislocated fixations can account for parafoveal-on-foveal effects in eye movements during reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 1239–1249. doi:10.1080/17470210701467953
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engbert, R., & Krügel, A. (2010) Readers use Bayesian estimation for eye-movement control. Psychological Science, 21, 366–371. doi:10.1177/0956797610362060
   PubMed Web of Science ®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, 621–636. doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(01)00301-7
   PubMed 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, 777–813.10.1037/0033-295X.112.4.777
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eriksen, C. W., & St. James, J. D. (1986). Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention – a zoom lense model. Perception and Psychophysics, 40(4), 225–240. doi:10.3758/BF03211502
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erlhagen, W., & Schöner, G. (2002). Dynamic field theory of movements preparation. Psychological Review, 109, 545–572. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.545
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Findlay, J. M., & Walker, R. (1999). A model of saccade generation based on parallel processing and competitive inhibition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 661–721.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
• Hyönä, J. (2011). Foveal and parafoveal processing during reading. In: S. P. Liversedge, I. D. Gilchrist, & S. Everling (Eds.), Eye movements handbook (pp. 819–838). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Inhoff, A. W. (1990). Integrating information across eye fixations in reading. Acta Psychologica, 73, 281–297. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(90)90027-D
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inhoff, A. W., Eiter, B. M., & Radach, R. (2005). The time course of linguistic information extraction from consecutive words during eye fixations in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 979–995.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inhoff, A. W., & Radach, R. (2014). Parafoveal preview benefits during silent and oral reading: Testing the parafoveal information extraction hypothesis. Visual Cognition, this issue.
   Google Scholar
• Inhoff, A. W., & Tousman, S. (1990). Lexical integration across eye fixations in reading. Psychological Research, 52, 330–337. doi:10.1007/BF00868065
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Kennedy, A., & Pynte, J. (2005). Parafoveal-on-foveal effects in normal reading. Vision Research, 45, 153–168. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2004.07.037
   PubMed 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., & Engbert, R. (2003). SWIFT explorations. In J. Hyönä, R. Radach, & H. Deubel (Eds.), The mind's eye: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research (pp. 103–117). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Kliegl, R., Nuthmann, A., & Engbert, R. (2006). Tracking the mind during reading: The influence of past, present, and future words on fixation durations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 12–35. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.12
   PubMed 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
• Krügel, A., & Engbert, R. (2010) On the launch-site effect for skipped words during reading. Vision Research, 50, 1532–1539. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2010.05.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krügel, A., Vitu, F., & Engbert, R. (2012). A single space makes a large difference: Fixation positions after skipping saccades. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74(8), 1556–1561. doi:10.3758/s13414-012-0365-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LaBerge, D., & Brown, V. (1989). Theory of attentional operations in shape identification. Psychological Review, 96(1), 101–124. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.96.1.101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McConkie, G. W., & Rayner, K. (1975). The span of the effective stimulus during a fixation in reading. Perception & Psychophysics, 17, 578–586. doi:10.3758/BF03203972
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McConkie, G. W., & Rayner, K. (1976). Asymmetry of the perceptual span in reading. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 8, 365–368. doi:10.3758/BF03335168
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell, M. (1998). An introduction togenetic algorithms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nuthmann, A., Smith, T. J., Engbert, R., & Henderson, J. M. (2010). CRISP: A computational model of fixation durations in scene viewing. Psychological Review, 117, 382–405. doi:10.1037/a0018924
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Regan, J. K. (1990). Eye movements and reading. In E. Kowler (Ed.), Eye movements and their role in visual and cognitive processes (pp. 395–453). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
   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., 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., McConkie, G. W., & Zola, D. (1980). Integrating information across eye movements. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 206–226. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(80)90009-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, K., Well, A. D., & Pollatsek, A. (1980). Asymmetry of the effective visual field in reading. Perception & Psychophysics, 27, 537–544. doi:10.3758/BF03198682
   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.), Eye movements handbook (pp. 767–786). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   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
• Reingold, E. M., & Stampe, D. M. (2004). Saccadic inhibition in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 194–211. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.30.1.194
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richter, E., Engbert, R., & Kliegl, R. (2006). Current advances in SWIFT. Cognitive Systems Research, 7, 23–33. doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2005.07.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Risse, S., & Kliegl, R. (2011). Adult age differences in the perceptual span during reading. Psychology and Aging, 26, 451–460. doi:10.1037/a0021616
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Risse, S., & Kliegl, R. (2012). Evidence for delayed parafoveal-on-foveal effects from word n + 2 in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 1026–1042. doi:10.1037/a0027735
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schad, D. J., & Engbert, R. (2012). The zoom lense of attention: Simulating shuffled versus normal text reading using the SWIFT model. Visual Cognition, 20(4–5), 391–421. doi:10.1080/13506285.2012.670143
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schad, D., Nuthmann, A., & Engbert, R. (2010). Eye movements during reading of randomly shuffled texts. Vision Research, 50, 2600–2616. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2010.08.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schotter, E. R., Angele, B., & Rayner, K. (2012). Parafoveal processing in reading. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 5–35. doi:10.3758/s13414-011-0219-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schotter, E. R., Reichle, E., & Rayner, K. (2014). Re-thinking parafoveal processing in reading: Serial-attention models can explain semantic preview benefit and n + 2 preview effects. Visual Cognition, this volume.
   Google Scholar
• Schroyens, W., Vitu, F., Brysbaert, M., & d'Ydewalle, G. (1999). Eye movement control during reading: Foveal load and parafoveal processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52A, 1021–1046. doi:10.1080/713755859
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trukenbrod, H. A., & Engbert, R. (2012). Eye movements in a sequential scanning task: Evidence for distributed processing. Journal of Vision, 12(1): 5, 1–12. doi:10.1167/12.1.5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trukenbrod, H. A., & Engbert, R. (2013). ICAT: A computational model for the adaptive control of fixation durations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (in press).
   Google Scholar
• Underwood, N. R., & McConkie, G. W. (1985). Perceptual span for letter distinctions during reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 153–162. doi:10.2307/747752
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, S.-N., & McConkie, G. W. (2001). Eye movements during reading: A theory of saccade initiation time. Vision Research, 41, 3567–3585. doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(01)00025-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar