The present study explores the role of the word position-in-text in sentence and paragraph reading. Three eye-movement data sets based on the reading of Dutch and German unrelated sentences reveal a sizeable, replicable increase in reading times over several words at the beginning and the end of sentences. The data from the paragraph-based English-language Dundee corpus replicate the pattern and also indicate that the increase in inspection times is driven by the visual boundaries of the text organized in lines, rather than by syntactic sentence boundaries. We argue that this effect is independent of several established lexical, contextual, and oculomotor predictors of eye-movement behaviour. We also provide evidence that the effect of word position-in-text has two independent components: a start-up effect, arguably caused by a strategic oculomotor programme of saccade planning over the line of text, and a wrap-up effect, originating in cognitive processes of comprehension and semantic integration.
AaronsonD.FerresS. (1983). Lexical categories and reading tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance9, 675–699.
2.
AaronsonD.ScarboroughH. (1976). Performance theories for sentence coding: Some quantitative evidence.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance2, 56–70.
3.
BaayenR. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
4.
BaayenR. H.DavidsonD. J.BatesD. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items.Journal of Memory and Language59, 390–412.
5.
BaloghJ.ZurifE.PratherP.SwinneyD.FinkelL. (1998). Gap-filling and end-of-sentence effects in real-time language processing: Implications for modeling sentence comprehension in aphasia.Brain and Language61, 169–182.
6.
BostonM.HaleJ.KlieglR.PatilU.VasishthS. (2008). Parsing costs as predictors of reading difficulty: An evaluation using the Potsdam Sentence Corpus.Journal of Eye Movement Research2, 1–12.
7.
ChangF. (1980). Active memory processes in visual sentence comprehension: Clause effects and pronominal reference.Memory and Cognition8, 58–64.
8.
DambacherM.KlieglR.HofmannM.JacobsA. (2006). Frequency and predictability effects on event-related potentials during reading.Brain Research1084, 189–103.
9.
DembergV.KellerF. (2008). Data from eye-tracking corpora as evidence for theories of syntactic processing complexity.Cognition109, 2193–210.
10.
EhrlichS. F.RaynerK. (1981). Contextual effects on word perception and eye movements during reading.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior20, 641–655.
11.
FerreiraF.HendersonJ. (1993). Reading processes during syntactic analysis and reanalysis.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology47, 247–275.
12.
GernsbacherM. (1990). Language comprehension as structure buildingHillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13.
GibsonE. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies.Cognition68, 11–76.
14.
HillR.MurrayW. (2000). Commas and spaces: Effects of punctuation on eye movements in sentence processing.KennedyA.HellerD.PynteJ.Reading as a perceptual processAmsterdam: Elsevier565–589.
15.
HirotaniM.FrazierL.RaynerK. (2006). Punctuation and intonation effects on clause and sentence wrap-up: Evidence from eye movements.Journal of Memory and Language54, 3425–443.
16.
HunterJ.MarshallR.McNairP. (2004). Interaction of step length and step rate during sprint running.Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise36, 2261–271.
17.
JustM.CarpenterP. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension.Psychological Review87, 4329–354.
18.
KennedyA.PynteJ. (2005). Parafoveal-on-foveal effects in normal reading.Vision Research45, 153–168.
19.
KlieglR. (2007). Toward a perceptual-span theory of distributed processing in reading: A reply to Rayner, Pollatsek, Drieghe, Slattery, and Reichle (2007).Journal of Experimental Psychology: General136, 3530–537.
20.
KlieglR.GrabnerE.RolfsM.EngbertR. (2004). Length, frequency, and predictability effects of words on eye movements in reading.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology16, 262–284.
21.
KlieglR.NuthmannA.EngbertR. (2006). Tracking the mind during reading: The influence of past, present and future words on fixation durations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General1, 12–35.
22.
KupermanV.BertramR.BaayenR. (2010). Processing trade-offs in the reading of Dutch derived words.Journal of Memory and Language62, 83–97.
23.
MeroA.KomiV.GregorR. (1992). Biomechanics of sprint running.Sports Medicine13, 376–392.
24.
MitchellD.ShenX.GreenM.HodgsonT. (2008). Accounting for regressive eye- movements in models of sentence processing: A reappraisal of the selective reanalysis hypothesis.Journal of Memory and Language59, 3266–293.
25.
NuthmannA.EngbertR. (2009). Mindless reading revisited: An analysis based on the SWIFT model of eye-movement control.Vision Research49, 322–336.
26.
NuthmannA.EngbertR.KlieglR. (2007). The IOVP effect in mindless reading: Experiment and modeling.Vision Research47, 990–1002.
27.
PatsonN.WarrenT. (in press). Eye movements when reading implausible sentences: Investigating potential structural influences on semantic integration.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.
28.
PinheiroJ. C.BatesD. M. (2000). Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS: Statistics and computingNew York: Springer.
29.
PynteJ.KennedyA. (2006). An influence over eye movements in reading exerted from beyond the level of the word: Evidence from reading English and French.Vision Research46, 223786–3801.
30.
PynteJ.NewB.KennedyA. (2008a). A multiple regression analysis of syntactic and semantic influences in reading normal text.Journal of Eye Movement Research2, 1–11.
31.
PynteJ.NewB.KennedyA. (2008b). On-line contextual influences during reading normal text: A multiple-regression analysis.Vision Research48, 212172–2183.
32.
R Development Core TeamR: A language and environment for statistical computingVienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing2007.
33.
RaynerK. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research.Psychological Bulletin124, 372–422.
34.
RaynerK.FischerM. (1996). Mindless reading revisited: Eye movements during reading and scanning are different.Perception & Psychophysics58, 5734–747.
35.
RaynerK.KambeG.DuffyS. (2000). The effect of clause wrap-up on eye movements during reading.The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A53, 41061–1080.
36.
RaynerK.SerenoS.MorrisR.SchmauderA.CliftonC. (1989). Eye movements and on-line language comprehension processes.Language and Cognitive Processes4, 321–49.
37.
ReichleE.WarrenT.McConnellK. (2009). Using E-Z Reader to model the effects of higher-level language processing on eye movements during reading.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review16, 11–21.
38.
van der BeekL.BoumaG.MaloufR.Van NoordG.The Alpino Dependency Treebank. Computational linguistics in the Netherlands CLIN 2001TheuneM.NijholtA.HondorpH.Selected papers from the Twelfth CLIN MeetingRodopiAmsterdam2002.
39.
Van PettenC.KutasM. (1990). Interactions between sentence context and word frequency in event-related brain potentials.Memory and Cognition18, 380–393.
40.
VituF.KapoulaZ.LancelinD.LavigneF. (2004). Eye movements in reading isolated words: Evidence for strong biases towards the center of the screen.Vision Research44, 3321–338.
41.
VituF.LancelinD.Marrier d'UnienvilleV. (2007). A perceptual-economy account for the inverted-optimal viewing position effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance33, 1220–1249.
42.
VituF.O'ReganJ.InhoffA.TopolskiR. (1995). Mindless reading: Eye-movement characteristics are similar in scanning letter strings and reading texts.Perception and Psychophysics57, 3352–364.
43.
WarrenT.WhiteS.ReichleE. (2009). Investigating the causes of wrap-up effects: Evidence from eye movements and E-Z Reader.Cognition111, 132–137.
