The influence of predictability, visual contrast, and preview validity on eye movements and N400 amplitude: co-registration evidence that the N400 reflects late processes

References

• Abbott, M. J., & Staub, A. (2015). The effect of plausibility on eye movements in reading: Testing E-Z reader’s null predictions. Journal of Memory and Language, 85, 76–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.07.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alday, P. M. (2019). How much baseline correction do we need in ERP research? Extended GLM model can replace baseline correction while lifting its limits. Psychophysiology, 56(12), e13451. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13451.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barber, H. A., Ben-Zvi, S., Bentin, S., & Kutas, M. (2011). Parafoveal perception during sentence reading? An ERP paradigm using rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) with flankers. Psychophysiology, 48(4), 523–531. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2010.01082.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. arXiv:1406.5823.
   Google Scholar
• Becker, C. A., & Killion, T. H. (1977). Interaction of visual and cognitive effects in word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3(3), 389–401. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.3.3.389
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bigdely-Shamlo, N., Mullen, T., Kothe, C., Su, K. M., & Robbins, K. A. (2015). The PREP pipeline: Standardized preprocessing for large-scale EEG analysis. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 9, 16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2015.00016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binda, P., Pereverzeva, M., & Murray, S. O. (2014). Pupil size reflects the focus of feature-based attention. Journal of Neurophysiology, 112(12), 3046–3052. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00502.2014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brothers, T., Hoversten, L. J., & Traxler, M. J. (2017). Looking back on reading ahead: No evidence for lexical parafoveal-on-foveal effects. Journal of Memory and Language, 96, 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bürkner, P. C. (2017). brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v080.i01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chauncey, K., Holcomb, P. J., & Grainger, J. (2008). Effects of stimulus font and size on masked repetition priming: An event-related potentials (ERP) investigation. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(1), 183–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960701579839
   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(1), 204–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.1.204
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dambacher, M., Dimigen, O., Braun, M., Wille, K., Jacobs, A. M., & Kliegl, R. (2012). Stimulus onset asynchrony and the timeline of word recognition: Event-related potentials during sentence reading. Neuropsychologia, 50(8), 1852–1870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.04.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dambacher, M., Kliegl, R., Hofmann, M., & Jacobs, A. M. (2006). Frequency and predictability effects on event-related potentials during reading. Brain Research, 1084(1), 89–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.02.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Degno, F., Loberg, O., Zang, C., Zhang, M., Donnelly, N., & Liversedge, S. P. (2019). Parafoveal previews and lexical frequency in natural reading: Evidence from eye movements and fixation-related potentials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(3), 453–474. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000494
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delorme, A., & Makeig, S. (2004). EEGLAB: An open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 134(1), 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dimigen, O., & Ehinger, B. V. (2021). Regression-based analysis of combined EEG and eye-tracking data: Theory and applications. Journal of Vision, 21(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.21.1.3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dimigen, O., Sommer, W., Hohlfeld, A., Jacobs, A. M., & Kliegl, R. (2011). Coregistration of eye movements and EEG in natural reading: Analyses and review. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(4), 552–572. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023885
   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(8), 1239–1249. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701467953
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Federmeier, K. D. (2022). Connecting and considering: Electrophysiology provides insights into comprehension. Psychophysiology, 59(1), e13940. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13940.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holcomb, P. J. (1993). Semantic priming and stimulus degradation: Implications for the role of the N400 in language processing. Psychophysiology, 30(1), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1993.tb03204.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kliegl, R., Hohenstein, S., Yan, M., & McDonald, S. A. (2013). How preview space/time translates into preview cost/benefit for fixation durations during reading. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(3), 581–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.658073
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kretzschmar, F., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2009). Parafoveal versus foveal N400s dissociate spreading activation from contextual fit. NeuroReport, 20(18), 1613–1618. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0b013e328332c4f4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kretzschmar, F., Schlesewsky, M., & Staub, A. (2015). Dissociating word frequency and predictability effects in reading: Evidence from co-registration of eye movements and EEG. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(6), 1648–1662. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000128
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 621–647. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. (2017). Imertest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
   Google Scholar
• Lau, E. F., Phillips, C., & Poeppel, D. (2008). A cortical network for semantics:(de) constructing the N400. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(12), 920–933. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2532
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liceralde, V. T., & Gordon, P. C. (2018, October 10). Consequences of power transforms as a statistical solution in linear mixed-effects models of chronometric data. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/f73mh
   Google Scholar
• Luck, S. J. (2014). An introduction to the event-related potential technique. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Luck, S. J., & Gaspelin, N. (2017). How to get statistically significant effects in any ERP experiment (and why you shouldn't). Psychophysiology, 54(1), 146–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12639
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luke, S. G. (2018). Influences on and consequences of parafoveal preview in reading. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80(7), 1675–1682. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-018-1581-0
   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(26), 4416–4424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2006.08.027
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M. S. (2019). Do ‘early’brain responses reveal word form prediction during language comprehension? A critical review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 96, 367–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.11.019
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M. S., Barr, D. J., Bartolozzi, F., Busch-Moreno, S., Darley, E., Donaldson, D. I., Ferguson, H. J., Fu, X., Heyselaar, E., Huettig, F., Matthew Husband, E., Ito, A., Kazanina, N., Kogan, V., Kohút, Z., Kulakova, E., Mézière, D., Politzer-Ahles, S., Rousselet, G., … Von Grebmer Zu Wolfsthurn, S. (2020). Dissociable effects of prediction and integration during language comprehension: Evidence from a large-scale study using brain potentials. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 375(1791), 20180522. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2018.0522
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker, A. J., Kirkby, J. A., & Slattery, T. J. (2017). Predictability effects during reading in the absence of parafoveal preview. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 29(8), 902–911. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2017.1340303
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Payne, B. R., Stites, M. C., & Federmeier, K. D. (2019). Event-related brain potentials reveal how multiple aspects of semantic processing unfold across parafoveal and foveal vision during sentence reading. Psychophysiology, 56(10), e13432. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13432.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, K. (1975). The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 16(1), 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90005-5
   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(4), 720–732. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.30.4.720
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, K., & Clifton Jr, C. (2009). Language processing in reading and speech perception is fast and incremental: Implications for event-related potential research. Biological Psychology, 80(1), 4–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2008.05.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition, 14(3), 191–201. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197692
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, K., Reichle, E. D., Stroud, M. J., Williams, C. C., & Pollatsek, A. (2006). The effect of word frequency, word predictability, and font difficulty on the eye movements of young and older readers. Psychology and Aging, 21(3), 448–465. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.21.3.448
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Reichle, E. D., Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2003). The EZ reader model of eye-movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26(4), 445–476. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X03000104
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reingold, E. M., & Rayner, K. (2006). Examining the word identification stages hypothesized by the EZ reader model. Psychological Science, 17(9), 742–746. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01775.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schotter, E. R., Angele, B., & Rayner, K. (2012). Parafoveal processing in reading. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74(1), 5–35. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-011-0219-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schramm, P., & Rouder, J. (2019, March 5). Are Reaction Time Transformations Really Beneficial?. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/9ksa6
   Google Scholar
• Smith, N. J., & Levy, R. (2013). The effect of word predictability on reading time is logarithmic. Cognition, 128(3), 302–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.02.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staub, A. (2015). The effect of lexical predictability on eye movements in reading: Critical review and theoretical interpretation. Language & Linguistics Compass, 9(8), 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12151
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staub, A. (2020). Do effects of visual contrast and font difficulty on readers’ eye movements interact with effects of word frequency or predictability? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 46(11), 1235–1251. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000853
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staub, A., & Goddard, K. (2019). The role of preview validity in predictability and frequency effects on eye movements in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(1), 110–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000561
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staub, A., White, S. J., Drieghe, D., Hollway, E. C., & Rayner, K. (2010). Distributional effects of word frequency on eye fixation durations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(5), 1280–1293. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016896
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stites, M. C., Payne, B. R., & Federmeier, K. D. (2017). Getting ahead of yourself: Parafoveal word expectancy modulates the N400 during sentence reading. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 17(3), 475–490. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-016-0492-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (1990). Interactions between sentence context and word frequency in event-related brain potentials. Memory & Cognition, 18(4), 380–393. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197127
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vergara-Martínez, M., Gómez, P., Jiménez, M., & Perea, M. (2015). Lexical enhancement during prime–target integration: ERP evidence from matched-case identity priming. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 15(2), 492–504. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-014-0330-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Von der Malsburg, T., & Angele, B. (2017). False positives and other statistical errors in standard analyses of eye movements in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 119–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.10.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warrington, K. L., McGowan, V. A., Paterson, K. B., & White, S. J. (2018). Effects of aging, word frequency, and text stimulus quality on reading across the adult lifespan: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(11), 1714–1729. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000543.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, S. J., & Staub, A. (2012). The distribution of fixation durations during reading: Effects of stimulus quality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(3), 603–617. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0025338
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wickham, H., Averick, M., Bryan, J., Chang, W., McGowan, L. D. A., François, R., … & Yutani, H. (2019). Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43), 1686. doi:10.21105/joss.01686
   Google Scholar