Task Relevance Induces Momentary Changes in the Functional Visual Field During Reading

Abstract

In the research reported here, we examined whether task demands can induce momentary tunnel vision during reading. More specifically, we examined whether the size of the functional visual field depends on task relevance. Forty participants read an expository text with a specific task in mind while their eye movements were recorded. A display-change paradigm with random-letter strings as preview masks was used to study the size of the functional visual field within sentences that contained task-relevant and task-irrelevant information. The results showed that orthographic parafoveal-on-foveal effects and preview benefits were observed for words within task-irrelevant but not task-relevant sentences. The results indicate that the size of the functional visual field is flexible and depends on the momentary processing demands of a reading task. The higher cognitive processing requirements experienced when reading task-relevant text rather than task-irrelevant text induce momentary tunnel vision, which narrows the functional visual field.

Keywords

eye movements reading attention

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baayen

R. H.

Davidson

D. J.

Bates

D. M.

(2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.

Drieghe

(2011). Parafoveal-on-foveal effects on eye movements during reading. In Liversedge

Gilchrist

Everling

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of eye movements (pp. 839–855). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Godnig

E. C.

(2003). Tunnel vision: Its causes and treatment strategies. Journal of Behavioral Optometry, 14, 95–99.

Heller

(1982). Eye movements in reading. In Groner

Fraisse

(Eds.), Cognition and eye movements (pp. 139–154). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North Holland.

Henderson

J. M.

Ferreira

(1990). Effects of foveal processing difficulty on the perceptual span in reading: Implications for attention and eye movement control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 417–429.

Hyönä

(2011). Foveal and parafoveal processing during reading. In Liversedge

Gilchrist

Everling

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of eye movements (pp. 819–838). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Inhoff

A. W.

Starr

Shindler

K. L.

(2000). Is the processing of words during eye fixations in reading strictly serial? Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 1474–1484.

Kaakinen

J. K.

Hyönä

(2007). Perspective effects in repeated reading: An eye movement study. Memory & Cognition, 35, 1323–1336.

Kaakinen

J. K.

Hyönä

Keenan

(2002). Perspective effects on online text processing. Discourse Processes, 33, 159–173.

10.

Kennedy

(2000). Parafoveal processing in word recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 53, 429–455.

11.

Kliegl

Nuthmann

Engbert

(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.

12.

Laycock

(1955). Significant characteristics of college students with varying flexibility in reading rate: I. Eye movements in reading prose. Journal of Experimental Education, 23, 311–319.

13.

McConkie

G. W.

Loschky

L. C.

(2002). Perception onset time during fixations in free viewing. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34, 481–490.

14.

R Development Core Team. (2011). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available from http://www.R-project.org/

15.

Radach

Huestegge

Reilly

(2008). The role of global top-down factors in local eye-movement control in reading. Psychological Research, 72, 675–688.

16.

Rayner

(1975). The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 65–81.

17.

Rayner

(1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 372–422.

18.

Rayner

(2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1457–1506.

19.

Rothkopf

E. Z.

Billington

M. J.

(1979). Goal-guided learning from text: Inferring a descriptive processing model from inspection times and eye movements. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 310–327.

20.

Shebilske

W. L.

Fisher

D. F.

(1983). Eye movements and context effects during reading of extended discourse. In Rayner

(Ed.), Eye movements in reading: Perceptual and language processes (pp. 157–179). New York, NY: Academic Press.

21.

Wotschack

Kliegl

(2013). Reading strategy modulates parafoveal-on-foveal effects in sentence reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 548–562.

22.

Yan

Kliegl

Shu

Pan

Zhou

(2010). Parafoveal load of word N+1 modulates preprocessing effectiveness of word N+2 in Chinese reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 1669–1676.