Eye movements were measured during the silent reading of sentences to extract several oculomotor measures. Rather than each measure being examined independently, oculomotor responses were grouped into two types, the assumption being that the grouping would project onto underlying constructs. Properties of forward-directed movements were assumed to reflect the success with which linguistic information was acquired (acquisition), and corrective responses were assumed to reveal readers’ responding to difficulties (correction). These two types of oculomotor responses were linked to indexes of reading accuracy (accuracy), which were obtained from separate materials so that eye movements with one set of materials could be used to predict reading accuracy for another set of materials. Path analyses indicated that correction, but not acquisition, was linked to accuracy. The additional clustering of acquisition, correction, and accuracy scores identified a group of readers with relatively low accuracy scores. These readers were typical in their acquisition of linguistic information but under-used corrective responding.
DriegheD.RaynerK.PollatsekA. (2005). Eye movements and word skipping during reading revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 954–969.
2.
EngbertR.NuthmannA.RichterE. M.KieglR. (2005). Swift: A dynamic model of saccade generation in reading. Psychological Review, 112, 777–813.
3.
FerreiraF.BaileyK. G. D.FerraroV. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11–15.
4.
FerreiraF.PatsonN. (2007). The good enough approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 71–83.
5.
FolkJ. R.MorrisR. K. (1995). Multiple lexical codes in reading – Evidence from eye-movements naming time, and oral reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 21, 1412–1429.
6.
GordonP. C.PlummerP.ChoiW. (2013). See before you jump: Full recognition of parafoveal words precedes skips during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 633–641.
7.
GreggJ.InhoffA.W. (2016). Misperception of orthographic neighbors during silent and oral reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/xhp0000193
8.
HyonaJ.LorchR. F.KaakinenJ. K. (2002). Individual differences in reading to summarize expository text: Evidence from eye fixation patterns. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94,44–55.
9.
InhoffA. W.RadachR. (1998). Definition and computation of oculomotor measures in the study of cognitive processes. In UnderwoodG. (Eds.), Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 29–54). Oxford: Elsevier Inc.
10.
LeischF. (2010). Neighborhood graphs, stripes and shadow plots for cluster visualization. Statistics and Computing, 20(4), 457–469.
11.
LeischF. A. (2006). Toolbox for K-centroids cluster analysis. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 51(2), 526–544.
12.
McConkieG. W.KerrP. W.ReddixM. D.ZolaD. (1988). Eye movement control during reading: I. The location of initial eye fixations on words. Vision Research, 28, 1107–1118.
13.
McConkieG. W.KerrP. W.ReddixM. D.ZolaD.JacobsA. (1989). Eye movement control during reading: II. Frequency of refixating a word. Perception & Psychophysics, 46, 245–253.
14.
NuthmannA.EngbertR.KlieglR. (2005). Mislocated fixations during reading and the inverted optimal viewing position effect. Vision Research, 45, 2201–2217.
15.
RadachR.InhoffA. W.HellerD. (2004). Orthographic regularity gradually modulates saccade amplitudes in reading. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 27–51.
16.
RaynerK. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422.
17.
RaynerK. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1457–1506.
18.
RaynerK.PollatsekA.AshbyJ.CliftonC. (2012). Psychology of reading. New York: Taylor and Francis, Psychology Press.
19.
ReichleE.RaynerK.PollatsekA. (2003). The E-Z reader model of eye-movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26, 445–526.
20.
ReichleE.WarrenT.McConnellK. (2009). Using E-Z reader to model the effects of higher level language processing on eye movements during reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 1–21.
SanfordA. J. (2002). Context, attention, and depth of processing during interpretation. Mind & Language, 17, 188–206.
23.
SanfordA. J.GraesserA. C. (2006). Shallow processing and underspecification. Discourse Processes, 42,99–108.
24.
SanfordA. J.SturtP. (2002). Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 382–386.
25.
SchotterE.TranR.RaynerK. (2014). Don’t believe what you read (only once): Comprehension is supported by regressions during reading. Psychological Science, 25, 1218–1226.
26.
SlatteryT. J. (2009). Word misperception, the neighbor frequency effect, and the role of sentence context: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1969–1975.
27.
VituF. (2005). Visual extraction processes and regressive sac-cades in reading. In UnderwoodG. (Ed.), Cognitive processes in eye guidance (pp. 1–33). New York: Oxford University Press.
28.
VituF.McConkieG. W. (2000). Regressive saccades and word perception in adult reading. In KennedyA.RadachR.HellerD.PynteJ. (Eds.), Reading as a perceptual process (pp. 301–326). Amsterdam, Netherlands: North-Holland/Elsevier.
29.
VorstiusC.RadachR.LoniganC. J. (2014). Eye movements in developing readers: A comparison of silent and oral sentence reading. Visual Cognition, 22, 458–485.
30.
WangC-A.InhoffA. W. (2013). Extraction of linguistic information from successive words during reading: Evidence for spatially distributed lexical processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 662–677.
