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(4), 1210–1220. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023096
- Balota, D. A., & Rayner, K. (1983). Parafoveal visual information and semantic contextual constraints. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9(5), 726–738. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.9.5.726
- Chambers, S. M., & Forster, K. I. (1975). Evidence for lexical access in a simultaneous matching task. Memory & Cognition, 3(5), 549–559. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197530
- Clahsen, H., & Sonnenstuhl-Henning, X. (1995). Grammatical constraints in syntactic processing: Sentence matching experiments in German. The Linguistic Review, 12(1), 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1995.12.1.5
- 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(8), 1239–1249. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701467953
- Engbert, R., & Kliegl, R. (2011). Parallel graded attention models of reading. In S. P. Liversedge, I. D. Gilchrist, & S. Everling (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of eye movements (pp. 787–800). Oxford University Press.
- Engbert, R., Nuthmann, A., Richter, E. M., & Kliegl, R. (2005). SWIFT: A dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. Psychological Review, 112(4), 777–813. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.4.777
- Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35(1), 116–124. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195503
- Foxe, J. J., & Simpson, G. V. (2002). Flow of activation from V1 to frontal cortex in humans. A framework for defining “early” visual processing. Experimental Brain Research, 142(1), 139–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-001-0906-7
- Garnham, A. (1985). Psycholinguistics: central topics. Methuen.
- Henderson, L. A. (1974). Word superiority effect without orthographic assistance. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 26(2), 301–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640747408400416
- 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(5), 1150–1170. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020233
- Hyönä, J., & Bertram, R. (2004). Do frequency characteristics of nonfixated words influence the processing of fixated words during reading? European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16(1-2), 104–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440340000132
- Inhoff, A. W., Starr, M., & Shindler, K. L. (2000). Is the processing of words during eye fixations in reading strictly serial? Perception & Psychophysics, 62(7), 1474–1484. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212147
- McConkie, G., & Rayner, K. (1976). Asymmetry of the perceptual span in reading. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 8(5), 365–368. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03335168
- Murray, W. S. (1982). Sentence matching: The influence of meaning and structure. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
- Murray, W. S., Fischer, M. H., & Tatler, B. W. (2013). Serial and parallel processes in eye movement control : current controversies and future directions. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(3), 417–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.759979
- Murray, W. S., & McKague, M. (2011). Word learning (and the lack of it). Paper presented to the 52nd annual meeting of the Psychonomics Society, Seattle. US, 2011, November 3-6.
- Murray, W. S., & Rowan, M. (1998). Early, mandatory, pragmatic processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023233406227
- Rayner, K. (1978). Foveal and parafoveal cues in reading. In J. Requin (Ed.), Foveal and parafoveal cues in reading (pp. 149–162). Erlbaum.
- Rayner, K. (2009). The 35th Sir Frederick Bartlett lecture: Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1457–1506. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902816461
- Rayner, K. (1996). Eye movement control in visual search: Effects of word frequency. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 238–244.
- Rayner, K., White, S. J., Kambe, G., Miller, B., & Liversedge, S. P. (2003). On the processing of meaning from parafoveal vision during eye fixations in reading. In J. Hyönä, R. Radach, & H. Deubel (Eds.), The Mind’s Eye: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research (pp. 213–234). Elsevier.
- Reichle, E. D., & Drieghe, D. (2015). Using E-Z reader to examine the consequences of fixation-location measurement error. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(1), 262–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037090.
- Reichle, E. D., Liversedge, S. P., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (2009). Encoding multiple words simultaneously in reading is implausible. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(3), 115–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.12.002
- Reichle, E. D., Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2003). The E-Z reader model of eye-movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26(4), 445–476. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X03000104
- Schotter, E. R. (2013). Synonyms provide semantic preview benefit in English. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(4), 619–633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.09.002
- Schotter, E. R., & Payne, B. R. (2019). Eye movements and comprehension are important to reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(10), 811–812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.06.005
- Schotter, E. R., Reichle, E. D., & Rayner, K. (2014). Rethinking parafoveal processing in reading: Serial-attention models can explain semantic preview benefit and N+ 2 preview effects. Visual Cognition, 22(3-4), 309–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2013.873508
- Simola, J., Holmqvist, K., & Lindgren, M. (2009). Right visual field advantage in parafoveal processing: Evidence from eye-fixation-related potentials. Brain and Language, 111(2), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2009.08.004
- Snell, J., Declerck, M., & Grainger, J. (2018). Parallel semantic processing in reading revisited: Effects of translation equivalents in bilingual readers. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33(5), 563–574. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2017.1392583
- Snell, J., & Grainger, J. (2019a). Readers are parallel processors. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(7), 537–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.04.006
- Snell, J., & Grainger, J. (2019b). Consciousness is not key in the serial versus parallel processing debate. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(1), 814–815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.07.010
- Snell, J., Meeter, M., & Grainger, J. (2017). Evidence for simultaneous syntactic processing of multiple words during reading. PloS one, 12(3), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173720
- Veldre, A., & Andrews, S. (2016). Semantic preview benefit in English: Individual differences in the extraction and use of parafoveal semantic information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(6), 837–854. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000212
- Vitu, F., McConkie, G. W., Kerr, P., & O'Regan, J. K. (2001). Fixation location effects on fixation durations during reading: An inverted optimal viewing position effect. Vision Research, 41(25-26), 3513–3533. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-6989(01)00166-3
- White, A., Palmer, J., Boynton, G., & Yeatman, J. (2019). Parallel spatial channels converge at a bottleneck in anterior word-selective cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(20), 10087–10096. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1822137116