The preferred viewing location (PVL) is a robust finding in research on reading that when fixating on a word during normal sentence reading, readers tend to land slightly to the left of the center of the word. This is in contrast to the optimal viewing location in single word recognition, which falls at the center of the word. This study outlines the history of the PVL in eye tracking since Rayner’s 1979 original study, documenting the origins of the conflicting theoretical explanations. In addition, a new study is reported examining whether the PVL can be attributed solely to oculomotor error or a processing advantage by using an experimental manipulation that separates tracking direction (left-to-right reading) and landing position (left-to-right within a word). Sentences were presented to participants from the top to the bottom of a computer screen with one word per line while eye movements were recorded. In this presentation format, readers continued to land to the left of center, suggesting that the PVL in normal reading is not solely due to oculomotor error.
BeckerW. (1972). The control of eye movements in the saccadic system. Bibliotheca Ophthalmologica, 82, 233–243.
2.
BeckerW. (1989). Metrics. In WurtzR. H.GoldbergM. E. (Eds.), The neurobiology of saccadic eye movements (pp. 13–67). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
3.
BriihlD.InhoffA. W. (1995). Integrating information across fixations during reading: The use of orthographic bodies and of exterior letters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 55–67.
4.
BrysbaertM. (2004). The importance of interhemispheric transfer for foveal vision: A factor that has been overlooked in theories of visual word recognition and object perception. Brain and Language, 88, 259–267.
5.
ClarkJ. J.O’ReganJ. K. (1999). Word ambiguity and the optimal viewing position in reading. Vision Research, 39, 843–857.
6.
DeutschA.RaynerK. (1999). Initial fixation location effects in reading Hebrew words. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 393–421. doi:10.1080/016909699386284
7.
Dunn-RankinP. (1978). The visual characteristics of words. Scientific American, 238(1), 122–130. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0178-122
8.
EngbertR.NuthmannA.RichterE. M.KlieglR. (2005). SWIFT: A dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. Psychological Review, 112, 777–813. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.112.4.777
9.
EverattJ.UnderwoodG. (1992). Parafoveal guidance and priming effects during reading: A special case of the mind being ahead of the eyes. Consciousness and Cognition, 1, 186–197.
10.
FaridM.GraingerJ. (1996). How initial fixation position influences visual word recognition: A comparison of French and Arabic. Brain and Language, 53, 351–368. doi:10.1006/brln.1996.0053
11.
FoulshamT.KingstoneA. (2013). Optimal and preferred eye landing positions in objects and scenes. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 1707–1728. doi:10.1080/17470218.2012.762798
12.
FrazierL.RaynerK. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178–210.
13.
GillenC.WeilerJ.HeathM. (2013). Stimulus-driven saccades are characterized by an invariant undershooting bias: No evidence for a range effect. Experimental Brain Research, 230, 165–174. doi:10.1007/s00221-013-3640-z
14.
GraingerJ.JacobsA. M. (1993). Masked partial-word priming in visual word recognition: Effects of positional letter frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 951–964.
15.
HarrisC. M. (1995). Does saccadic undershoot minimize saccadic flight-time? A Monte-Carlo study. Vision Research, 35, 691–701. doi:10.1016/0042-6989(94)00163-g
16.
HensonD. B. (1979). Investigation into corrective saccadic eye movements for refixation amplitudes of 10 degrees and below. Vision Research, 19, 57–61.
17.
HyönäJ. (1995). Do irregular letter combinations attract readers’ attention? Evidence from fixation locations in words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 68–81.
18.
HyönäJ.NiemiP.UnderwoodG. (1989). Reading long words embedded in sentences: Informativeness of word parts affects eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 142–152.
19.
HyönäJ.PollatsekA. (1998). Reading Finnish compound words: Eye fixations are affected by component morphemes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1612–1627. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.24.6.1612
20.
InhoffA. W. (1990). Integrating information across eye fixations in reading: The role of letter and word units. Acta Psychologica, 73, 281–297.
21.
JohnsonR. L.EislerM. E. (2012). The importance of the first and last letter in words during sentence reading. Acta Psychologica, 141, 336–351.
22.
JohnsonR. L.PereaM.RaynerK. (2007). Transposed-letter effects in reading: Evidence from eye movements and parafoveal preview. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 209–229.
23.
JordanT. R.ThomasS. M.PatchingG. R.Scott-BrownK. C. (2003). Assessing the importance of letter pairs in initial, exterior, and interior positions in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 883–893.
24.
KapoulaZ. (1985). Evidence for a range effect in the saccadic system. Vision Research, 25, 1155–1157. doi:10.1016/0042-6989(85)90105-1
25.
LiX.LiuP.RaynerK. (2011). Eye movement guidance in Chinese reading: Is there a preferred viewing location?Vision Research, 51, 1146–1156. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2011.03.004
26.
LimaS. D.InhoffA. W. (1985). Lexical access during eye fixations in reading: Effects of word-initial letter sequence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 272–285.
27.
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.
28.
McConkieG. W.KerrP. W.ReddixM. D.ZolaD.JacobsA. M. (1989). Eye-movement control during reading II: Frequency of refixating a word. Perception & Psychophysics, 46, 245–253.
29.
McDonaldS. A. (2006). Effects of number-of-letters on eye movements during reading are independent from effects of spatial word length. Visual Cognition, 13, 89–98.
30.
McDonaldS. A.CarpenterR. H. S.ShillcockR. C. (2005). An anatomically-constrained, stochastic model of eye movement control in reading. Psychological Review, 112, 814–840. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.112.4.814
31.
NazirT. A.Ben-BoutayabN.DecoppetN.DeutschA.FrostR. (2004). Reading habits, perceptual learning, and recognition of printed words. Brain and Language, 88, 294–311. doi:10.1016/S0093-934X
32.
NuthmannA. (2013). Not fixating at the line of text comes at a cost. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75, 1604–1609. doi:10.3758/s13414-013-0581-3
33.
NuthmannA.HendersonJ. (2010). Object-based attentional selection in scene viewing. Journal of Vision, 10, 1–19. doi:10.1167/10.8.20
34.
NuthmannA.EngbertR.KlieglR. (2005). Mislocated fixations during reading and the inverted optimal viewing position effect. Vision Research, 45, 2201–2217. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2005.02.014
35.
NuthmannA.EngbertR.KlieglR. (2007). The IOVP effect in mindless reading: Experiment and modeling. Vision Research, 47, 990–1002. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2006.11.005
36.
NuthmannA.EngbertR. (2009). Mindless reading revisited: An analysis based on the SWIFT model of eye-movement control. Vision Research, 49, 322–336. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2008.10.022
37.
NuthmannA.KlieglR. (2009). Preferred viewing locations: A validation and an extension. Perception, 38, 901–902.
38.
NuthmannA.VituF.EngbertR.KlieglR. (2016). No evidence for a saccadic range effect for visually guided and memory-guided saccades in simple saccade-targeting tasks. PLoS ONE, 11(9), e0162449. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0162449
39.
O’ReganJ. K. (1981). The convenient viewing position hypothesis. In FisherD. F.MontyR. A.SendersJ. W. (Eds.), Eye movements: Cognition and visual perception (pp. 289–298). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
40.
O’ReganJ. K. (1990). Eye movements and reading. In KowlerE. (Ed.), Eye movements and their role in visual and cognitive processes (pp. 395–453). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
41.
O’ReganJ. K. (1992). Optimal viewing position in words and the strategy-tactics theory of eye movements in reading. In RaynerK. (Ed.), Eye movements and visual cognition: Scene perception and reading (pp. 333–354). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
42.
O’ReganJ. K.JacobsA. M. (1992). Optimal viewing position effect in word recognition: A challenge to current theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 185–197.
43.
O’ReganJ. K.Lévy-SchoenA. (1987). Eye-movement strategy and tactics in word recognition and reading. In ColtheartM. (Ed.), Attention and performance 12: The psychology of reading (pp. 363–383). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
44.
ParkhurstD.LawK.NieburE. (2002). Modeling the role of salience in the allocation of overt visual attention. Vision Research, 42, 107–123. doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(01)00250-4
45.
PatersonK. B.JordanT. R. (2010). Effects of increased letter spacing on word identification and eye guidance during reading. Memory & Cognition, 38, 502–512. doi:10.3758/MC.38.4.502
46.
PereaM.AchaJ. (2009). Space information is important for reading. Vision Research, 49, 1994–2000.
47.
PlummerP.RaynerK. (2012). Effects of parafoveal word length and orthographic features on initial landing positions in reading. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 950–963.
48.
RadachR.InhoffA.HellerD. (2004). Orthographic regularity gradually modulates saccade amplitudes in reading. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 27–51. doi:10.1080/09541440340000222
49.
RadachR.McConkieG. W. (1998). Determinants of fixation positions in words during reading. In UnderwoodG. (Ed.), Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 77–100). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978-008043361-5/50005-5
50.
RaynerK. (1979). Eye guidance in reading: Fixation locations within words. Perception, 8, 21–30.
51.
RaynerK. (2009). Eye movements and landing positions in reading: A retrospective. Perception, 38, 895–899.
52.
RaynerK.FischerM. H.PollatsekA. (1998). Unspaced text interferes with both word identification and eye movement control. Vision Research, 38, 1129–1144.
53.
RaynerK.KaiserJ. S. (1975). Reading mutilated text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 301–306.
54.
RaynerK.McConkieG. W.ZolaD. (1980). Integrating information across eye movements. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 206–226.
55.
RaynerK.MorrisR. K. (1992). Eye movement control in reading: Evidence against semantic preprocessing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 163–172.
56.
RaynerK.PollatsekA.AshbyJ.CliftonC. J. (2012). Psychology of reading (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
57.
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 Performance, 22, 1188–1200.
58.
ReichleE. D.PollatsekA.FisherD. L.RaynerK. (1998). Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. Psychological Review, 105, 125–157.
59.
ReichleE. D.RaynerK.PollatsekA. (1999). Eye movement control in reading: Accounting for initial fixation locations and refixations within the E-Z Reader model. Vision Research, 39, 4403–4411. doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(99)00152-2
60.
ReillyR. G.RadachR. (2006). Some empirical tests of an interactive activation model of eye movement control in reading. Cognitive Systems Research, 7, 34–55. doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2005.07.006
61.
SchillingH. E. H.RaynerK.ChumbleyJ. I. (1998). Comparing naming, lexical decision, and eye fixation times: Word frequency effects and individual differences. Memory and Cognition, 26, 1270–1281.
62.
UnderwoodG. (2009). Fixation locations within words. Perception, 38, 902–903.
63.
UnderwoodG.ClewsS.EverattJ. (1990). How do readers know where to look next? Local information distributions influence eye fixations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 42, 39–65.
64.
van der LindenL.VituF. (2016). On the optimal viewing position for object processing. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 78, 602–607. doi:10.3758/s13414-015-1025-z
65.
VituF. (2011). On the role of visual and oculomotor processes in reading. In LiversedgeS. P.GilchristI. D.EverlingS. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of eye movements (pp. 731–749). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
66.
VituF.McConkieG. W.KerrP.O’ReganJ. K. (2001). Fixation location effects on fixation durations during reading: An inverted optimal viewing position effect. Vision Research, 41, 3513–3533. doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(01)00166-3
67.
VituF.O’ReganJ. K.InhoffA. W.TopolskiR. (1995). Mindless reading: Eye-movement characteristics are similar in scanning letter strings and reading texts. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 352–364. doi:10.3758/BF03213060
68.
VituF.O’ReganJ. K.MittauM. (1990). Optimal landing position in reading isolated words and continuous text. Perception & Psychophysics, 47, 583–600.
69.
WhiteS. J.JohnsonR. L.LiversedgeS.RaynerK. (2008). Eye movements when reading transposed text: The importance of word beginning letters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 1261–1276.
70.
WhiteS. J.LiversedgeS. P. (2004). Orthographic familiarity influences initial eye fixation positions in reading. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 52–78.
71.
WhiteS. J.LiversedgeS. P. (2006a). Foveal processing difficulty does not modulate non-foveal orthographic influences on fixation positions. Vision Research, 46, 426–437.
72.
WhiteS. J.LiversedgeS. P. (2006b). Linguistic and non-linguistic influences on the eyes’ landing positions during reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 760–782.
