Models of eye guidance in reading rely on the concept of the perceptual span—the amount of information perceived during a single eye fixation, which is considered to be a consequence of visual and attentional constraints. To directly investigate attentional mechanisms underlying the perceptual span, we implemented a new reading paradigm—parafoveal magnification (PM)—that compensates for how visual acuity drops off as a function of retinal eccentricity. On each fixation and in real time, parafoveal text is magnified to equalize its perceptual impact with that of concurrent foveal text. Experiment 1 demonstrated that PM does not increase the amount of text that is processed, supporting an attentional-based account of eye movements in reading. Experiment 2 explored a contentious issue that differentiates competing models of eye movement control and showed that, even when parafoveal information is enlarged, visual attention in reading is allocated in a serial fashion from word to word.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnstisS.M. (1974). A chart demonstrating variations in acuity with retinal position. Vision Research, 14, 589–592.
2.
BaiX.YanG.ZangC.LiversedgeS.RaynerK. (2008). Reading spaced and unspaced Chinese text: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 1277–1287.
3.
BalotaD.RaynerK. (1991). Word recognition processes in foveal and parafoveal vision: The range of influence of lexical variables. In BesnerD.HumphreysG. (Eds.), Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition (pp. 198–232). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4.
BrainardD.H. (1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436.
5.
CornelissenF.W.PetersE.PalmerJ. (2002). The Eyelink Toolbox: Eye tracking with MATLAB and the Psychophysics Toolbox. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34, 613–617.
6.
DriegheD.BrysbaertM.DesmetT. (2005). Parafoveal-on-foveal effects on eye movements in text reading: Does an extra space make a difference?Vision Research, 45, 1693–1706.
7.
DriegheD.RaynerK.PollatsekA. (2008). Mislocated fixations can account for parafoveal-on-foveal effects in eye movements during reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 1239–1249.
8.
EngbertR.NuthmannA.RichterE.M.KlieglR. (2005). A dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. Psychological Review, 112, 777–813.
9.
HarwoodM.R.MadelainL.KrauzlisR.J.WallmanJ. (2008). The spatial scale of attention strongly modulates saccade latencies. Journal of Neurophysiology, 99, 1743–1757.
10.
InhoffA.W.EiterB.M.RadachR. (2005). Time course of linguistic information extraction from consecutive words during eye fixations in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 979–995.
11.
KennedyA. (2008). Parafoveal-on-foveal effects are not an artifact of mislocated saccades. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 2(1), Article 2. Retrieved April 30, 2009, from http://www.jemr.org/online/2/1/2
12.
KennedyA.PynteJ. (2005). Parafoveal-on-foveal effects in normal reading. Vision Research, 45, 153–168.
13.
KilleenP.R. (2005). An alternative to null-hypothesis significance tests. Psychological Science, 16, 345–353.
14.
KlieglR.NuthmannA.EngbertR. (2006). Tracking the mind during reading: The influence of past, present, and future words on fixation durations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 12–35.
15.
LeggeG.E.HoovenT.A.KlitzT.S.MansfieldJ.S.TjanB.S. (2002). Mr. Chips 2002: New insights from an ideal-observer model of reading. Vision Research, 42, 2219–2234.
16.
LorchR.F.MyersJ.L. (1990). Regression analyses of repeated measures data in cognitive research. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 149–157.
17.
McConkieG.W.RaynerK. (1975). The span of the effective stimulus during a fixation in reading. Perception & Psychophysics, 17, 578–586.
18.
MielletS.PernetC.O'DonnellP.J.SerenoS.C. (2007, August). English versus French: Determinants of eye movement control in reading. Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the European Conference on Eye Movements, Potsdam, Germany.
19.
MorrisonR.E. (1984). Manipulation of stimulus onset delay in reading: Evidence for parallel programming of saccades. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 667–682.
20.
MorrisonR.E.RaynerK. (1981). Saccade size in reading depends upon character spaces and not visual angle. Perception & Psychophysics, 30, 395–396.
21.
NazirT.A.JacobsA.M.O'ReganJ.K. (1998). Letter legibility and visual word recognition. Memory & Cognition, 26, 810–821.
22.
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.
23.
PollatsekA.BolozkyS.WellA.D.RaynerK. (1981). Asymmetries in the perceptual span for Israeli readers. Brain and Language, 14, 174–180.
24.
RaynerK. (1975). The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 65–81.
25.
RaynerK. (1979). Eye guidance in reading: Fixation locations within words. Perception, 8, 21–30.
26.
RaynerK. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422.
27.
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.
28.
RaynerK.WarrenT.JuhaszB.LiversedgeS. (2004). The effects of plausibility on eye movements in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 1290–1301.
29.
ReichleE.D.RaynerK.PollatsekA. (2003). The E-Z Reader model of eye movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26, 445–476.
30.
ReillyR.G.RadachR. (2003). Foundations of an interactive activation model of eye movement control in reading. In HyönäJ.RadachR.DeubelH. (Eds.), The mind's eye: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research (pp. 429–455). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
31.
RichterE.M.EngbertR.KlieglR. (2006). Current advances in SWIFT. Cognitive Systems Research, 7, 23–33.
