Contrasting predictions of serial and parallel views on the processing of foveal and parafoveal information during reading were tested. A high-frequency adjective (young) was followed by either a high-frequency wordn (child) or a low-frequency wordn (tenor), which in turn was followed by either a correct (performing) or an orthographic illegal wordn + 1 (pxvforming) as a parafoveal preview. A limited parafoveal-on-foveal effect was observed: There were inflated fixation times on wordn when the preview of wordn + 1 was orthographically illegal. However, this parafoveal-on-foveal effect was (a) independent of the frequency of wordn, (b) restricted to those instances when the eyes were very close to wordn + 1, and (c) associated with relatively long prior saccades. These observations are all compatible with a mislocated fixation account in which parafoveal-on-foveal effects result from saccadic undershoots of wordn + 1 and with a serial model of eye movement control during reading.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrysbaertM.DriegheD.VituF. (2005). Word skipping: Implications for theories of eye movement control in reading.Cognitive processes in eye guidance. UnderwoodG.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press53–78.
2.
DriegheD.BrysbaertM.DesmetT. (2005a). Parafoveal-on-foveal effects on eye movements in text reading: Does an extra space make a difference?.Vision Research45, 1693–1706.
3.
DriegheD.RaynerK.PollatsekA. (2005b). Word skipping during reading revisited.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance31, 954–969.
4.
EngbertR.NuthmannA.KlieglR. (2007). An iterative algorithm for the estimation of the distribution of mislocated fixations during reading. In R. P. G. Van Gompel, M. F. Fischer, W. S. Murray, & R. L. Hill (Eds.).Eye movements: A window on mind and brainOxford, UK: Elsevier319–337.
5.
EngbertR.NuthmannA.RichterE.KlieglR. (2005). SWIFT: A dynamical model of saccade generation during reading.Psychological Review112, 777–813.
6.
FrancisW.KuĉeraH. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage: Lexicon and grammarBoston: Houghton Mifflin.
7.
HendersonJ. M.FerreiraF. (1990). Effects of foveal processing difficulty on the perceptual span in reading: Implications for theories of reading eye movements.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition16, 417–429.
8.
HyönäJ.BertramR. (2004). Do frequency characteristics of nonfixated words influence the processing of fixated words during reading?.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology16, 104–127.
9.
InhoffA. W.StarrM.ShindlerK. L. (2000). Is the processing of words during eye fixations in reading strictly serial?.Perception & Psychophysics62, 1474–1484.
10.
KennedyA.PynteJ. (2005). Parafoveal-on-foveal effects in normal reading.Vision Research45, 153–168.
11.
KennisonS. M.CliftonC. 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 Cognition21, 68–81.
12.
McConkieG. W.KerrP. W.ReddixM. D.ZolaD. (1988). Eye movement control during reading: I. The location of initial eye fixations on words.Vision Research28, 1107–1118.
13.
NuthmannA.EngbertR.KlieglR. (2005). Mislocated fixations during reading and the inverted optimal viewing position.Vision Research45, 2201–2217.
14.
RaynerK. (1975). The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading.Cognitive Psychology7, 65–81.
15.
RaynerK. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research.Psychological Bulletin124, 372–422.
16.
RaynerK.JuhaszB. J. (2004). Eye movements in reading: Old questions and new directions.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology16, 340–352.
17.
RaynerK.LiversedgeS. P.WhiteS. J. (2006). Eye movements when reading disappearing text: The importance of the word to the right of the fixation.Vision Research46, 310–323.
18.
RaynerK.PollatsekA.DriegheD.SlatteryT. J.ReichleE. D. (2007). Tracking the mind during reading via eye movements: Comments on Kliegl, Nuthmann, and Engbert (2006).Journal of Experimental Psychology: General136, 520–529.
19.
RaynerK.SerenoS. C.RaneyG. E. (1996). Eye movement control in reading: A comparison of two types of models.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance22, 1188–1200.
20.
RaynerK.WarrenT.JuhaszB. J.LiversedgeS. P. (2004). The effect of plausibility on eye movements during reading.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition30, 1290–1301.
21.
RaynerK.WhiteS. J.KambeG.MillerB.LiversedgeS. P. (2003). On the processing of meaning from parafoveal vision during eye fixations in reading.Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research. HyönäJ.RadachR.DeubelH.Amsterdam: Elsevier213–234.
22.
ReichleE.PollatsekA.RaynerK. (2007). Modeling the effects of lexical ambiguity on eye movements during reading.Eye movements: A window on mind and brain. Van GompelR. P. G.FischerM. F.MurrayW. S.HillR. L.Oxford, UK: Elsevier271–292.
23.
ReichleE. D.RaynerK.PollatsekA. (2003). The E–Z Reader model of eye movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models.Behavioral and Brain Sciences26, 445–526.
24.
ReillyR.RadachR. (2006). Some empirical tests of an interactive model of eye movement control in reading.Cognitive Systems Research7, 34–55.
25.
SchroyensW.VituF.BrysbaertM.d'YdewalleG. (1999). Eye movements during reading: Foveal load and parafoveal processing.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology52A, 1021–1046.
26.
VituF.McConkieG. W.KerrP.O'ReganJ. K. (2001). Fixation location effects on fixation durations during reading: An inverted optimal viewing position effect.Vision Research41, 3513–3533.
27.
WhiteS. J.LiversedgeS. P. (2006). Foveal processing difficulty does not modulate non-foveal orthographic influences on fixation positions.Vision Research46, 426–437.
28.
WhiteS. J.RaynerK.LiversedgeS. P. (2005). Eye movements and the modulation of parafoveal processing by foveal processing difficulty: A reexamination.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review12, 891–896.
