Is attention allocated to only one word or to multiple words at any given time during reading? The experiments reported here addressed this question using a novel paradigm inspired by classic findings on object-based attention. In Experiment 1, participants (N = 18) made lexical decisions about one of two spatially colocated Chinese words or nonwords. Our main finding was that only the attended word’s frequency influenced response times and accuracy. In Experiment 2, participants (N = 30) read target words embedded in two spatially colocated Chinese sentences. Our key finding here was that only target-word frequencies influenced looking times and fixation positions. These results support the hypothesis that words are attended in a strictly serial (and perhaps object-based) manner during reading. The theoretical implications of this conclusion are discussed in relation to models of eye-movement control during reading and the conceptualization of words as visual objects.
AngeleB.SchotterE. R.SlatteryT. J.TenenbaumT. L.BicknellK.RaynerK. (2015). Do successor effects in reading reflect lexical parafoveal processing? Evidence from corpus-based and experimental eye movement data. Journal of Memory and Language, 79–80, 76–96.
2.
BarrD. J.LevyR.ScheepersC.TilyH. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.
3.
BatesD.KlieglR.VasishthS.BaayenH. (2015). Parsimonious mixed models. arXiv:1506.04967. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.04967
4.
BrothersT.HoverstenL. J.TraxlerM. J. (2017). Looking back on reading ahead: No evidence for lexical parafoveal-on-foveal effects. Journal of Memory and Language, 96, 9–22.
CiaramitaroV. M.MitchellJ. F.StonerG. R.ReynoldsJ. H.BoyntonG. M. (2011). Object-based attention to one of two superimposed surfaces alters responses in human early visual cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology, 105, 1258–1265.
7.
CornelissenF. W.PetersE. M.PalmerJ. (2002). The Eyelink Toolbox: Eye tracking with MATLAB and the Psychophysics Toolbox. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34, 613–617.
8.
DeubelH.SchneiderW. X. (1996). Saccade target selection and object recognition: Evidence for a common attentional mechanism. Vision Research, 36, 1827–1837.
9.
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.
10.
DuncanJ. (1984). Selective attention and the organization of visual information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 501–517.
11.
EngbertR.NuthmannA.RichterE. M.KlieglR. (2005). SWIFT: A dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. Psychological Review, 112, 777–813.
12.
HendersonJ. M.FerreiraF. (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.
13.
HendersonJ. M.FerreiraF. (1993). Eye movement control during reading: Fixation measures reflect foveal but not parafoveal processing difficulty. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 201–221.
14.
KennedyA. (1998). The influence of parafoveal words on foveal inspection time: Evidence for a processing trade-off. In UnderwoodG. (Ed.), Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 149–179). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
15.
KennedyA. (2000). Parafoveal processing in word recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 53, 429–455.
16.
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: General, 136, 530–537.
17.
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.
LiX.RaynerK.CaveK. R. (2009). On the segmentation of Chinese words during reading. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 525–552.
20.
LiuY.HuangR.GaoD.-G.ReichleE. D. (2017). Further tests of a dynamic-adjustment account of saccade targeting during the reading of Chinese. Cognitive Science, 41, 1264–1287.
21.
LiuY.ReichleE. D.GaoD.-G. (2013). Using reinforcement learning to examine dynamic attention allocation during reading. Cognitive Science, 37, 1507–1540.
22.
LiuY.ReichleE. D.LiX. (2015). Parafoveal processing affects outgoing saccade length during the reading of Chinese. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 1229–1236.
23.
LiuY.ReichleE. D.LiX. (2016). The effect of word frequency and parafoveal preview on saccade length during the reading of Chinese. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42, 1008–1025.
24.
MaG.LiX.RaynerK. (2015). Readers extract character frequency information from nonfixated-target word at long pre-target fixations during Chinese reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41, 1409–1419.
25.
MacLeodC. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163–203.
26.
PinheiroJ. C.BatesD. M. (2000). Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. New York, NY: Springer.
27.
RadachR.KennedyA. (2013). Eye movements in reading: Some theoretical context. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 429–452.
28.
RaynerK. (2009). Eye movements and attention during reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1457–1506.
29.
RaynerK.PollatsekA.DriegheD.SlatteryT. J.ReichleE. D. (2007). Tracking the mind during reading via eye movements: Comments on Kliegl, Nuthmann, and Engbert (2006). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 520–529.
30.
R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org
31.
ReichleE. D. (2011). Serial attention models of reading. In LiversedgeS. P.GilchristI. D.EverlingS. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of eye movements (pp. 767–786). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
32.
ReichleE. D.DriegheD. (2015). Using E-Z Reader to examine the consequences of fixation-location measurement error. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 262–270.
33.
ReichleE. D.LiversedgeS. P.PollatsekA.RaynerK. (2009). Encoding multiple words simultaneously in reading is implausible. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 115–119.
34.
ReichleE. D.PollatsekA.FisherD. L.RaynerK. (1998). Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. Psychological Review, 105, 125–157.
35.
ReichleE. D.PollatsekA.RaynerK. (2012). Using E-Z Reader to simulate eye movements in non-reading tasks: A unified framework for understanding the eye-mind link. Psychological Review, 119, 155–185.
36.
SchadD. J.EngbertR. (2012). The zoom lens of attention: Simulating shuffled versus normal text reading using the SWIFT model. Visual Cognition, 20, 391–421.
37.
SchillingH. E. H.RaynerK.ChumbleyJ. I. (1998). Comparing naming, lexical decision, and eye fixation times: Word frequency effects and individual differences. Memory & Cognition, 26, 1270–1281.
WhiteS. J. (2008). Eye movement control during reading: Effects of word frequency and orthographic familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 205–223.
40.
ZangC.LiversedgeS. P.BaiX.YanG. (2011). Eye movements during Chinese reading. In LiversedgeS. P.GilchristI. D.EverlingS. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of eye movements (pp. 961–978). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
