Using gaze-contingent display changes in the boundary paradigm during sentence reading, it has recently been shown that parafoveal word-processing difficulties affect fixations on words to the right of the boundary. Current interpretations of this post-boundary preview difficulty effect range from delayed parafoveal-on-foveal effects in parallel word-processing models to forced fixations in serial word-processing models. However, these findings are based on an experimental design that, while allowing to isolate preview difficulty effects, might have established a bias with respect to asymmetries in parafoveal preview benefit for high-frequent and low-frequent target words. Here, we present a revision of this paradigm varying the preview’s lexical frequency and keeping the target word constant. We found substantial effects of the preview difficulty in fixation durations after the boundary confirming that preview processing affects the oculomotor decisions not only via trans-saccadic integration of preview and target word information. An additional time-course analysis showed that the preview difficulty effect was significant across the full fixation duration distribution on the target word without any evidence on the pretarget word before the boundary. We discuss implications of the accumulating evidence of post-boundary preview difficulty effects for models of eye movement control during reading.
AartsE.VerhageM.VeenvlietJ. V.DolanC. V.Van Der SluisS. (2014). A solution to dependency: Using multilevel analysis to accommodate nested data. Nature Neuroscience, 17, 491–496. doi:10.1038/nn.3648
2.
BaayenR. H.DavidsonD. J.BatesD. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
3.
BachM. (2007). The Freiburg Visual Acuity Test—Variability unchanged by post-hoc re-analysis. Graefe’s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, 245, 965–971.
4.
BalotaD. A.PollatsekA.RaynerK. (1985). The interaction of contextual constraints and parafoveal visual information in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 364–390. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(85)90013-1
5.
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. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
6.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01
7.
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. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2017.04.001
8.
BrysbaertM.DriegheD.VituF. (2005). Word skipping: Implications for theories of eye movement control in reading. In UnderwoodG. (Ed.), Cognitive processes in eye guidance (pp. 53–78). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
9.
DriegheD. (2011). Parafoveal-on-foveal effects on eye movements during reading. In LiversedgeS. P.GilchristI. D.EverlingS. (Eds.), Eye movements handbook (pp. 839–855). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
10.
DriegheD.RaynerK.PollatsekA. (2008). Mislocated fixations can account for parafoveal-on-foveal effects in eye movements during reading. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 1239–1249. doi:10.1080/17470210701467953
11.
EngbertR.MergenthalerK. (2006). Microsaccades are triggered by low retinal image slip. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103, 7192–7197. doi:10.1073/pnas.0509557103
12.
EngbertR.NuthmannA. (2008). Self-consistent estimation of mislocated fixations during reading. PLoS ONE, 3(2), e1534. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001534
13.
EngbertR.NuthmannA.RichterE.KlieglR. (2005). SWIFT: A dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. Psychological Review, 112, 777–813. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.112.4.777
14.
GeykenA. (2007). The DWDS-Corpus: A reference corpus for the German language of the 20th century. In FellbaumC. (Ed.), Collocations and idioms: Linguistic, lexicographic, and computational aspects (pp. 23–40). London, England: Continuum Press.
15.
HeisterJ.WürznerK.-M.BubenzerJ.PohlE.HanneforthT.GeykenA.KlieglR. (2011). dlexDB eine lexikalische Datenbank für die psychologische und linguistische Forschung [dlexDB a lexical database for psychological and liguistic research]. Psychologische Rundschau, 62(1), 10–20. doi:10.1026/0033-3042/a000029
16.
HohensteinS.KlieglR. (2014). Semantic preview benefit during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 166–190. doi:10.1037/a0033670
17.
HyönäJ. (2011). Foveal and parafoveal processing during reading. In LiversedgeS. P.GilchristI. D.EverlingS. (Eds.), Eye movements handbook (pp. 819–838). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
18.
HyönäJ.BertramR. (2004). Do frequency characteristics of nonfixated words influence the processing of fixated words during reading?European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 104–127. doi:10.1080/09541440340000132
19.
InhoffA. W.RaynerK. (1986). Parafoveal word processing during eye fixations in reading: Effects of word frequency. Perception & Psychophysics, 40, 431–439. doi:10.3758/BF03208203
20.
InhoffA. W.StarrM.ShindlerK. L. (2000). Is the processing of words during eye fixations in reading strictly serial?Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 1474–1484.
21.
InhoffA. W.TousmanS. (1990). Lexical integration across saccades in reading. Psychological Research, 52, 330–337. doi:10.1007/BF00868065
22.
KennedyA. (2008). Parafoveal-on-foveal effects are not an artifact of mislocated saccades. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 2(1), 2.
23.
KennedyA.PynteJ. (2005). Parafoveal-on-foveal effects in normal reading. Vision Research, 45, 153–168. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2004.07.037
24.
KennedyA.PynteJ.DucrotS. (2002). Parafoveal-on-foveal interactions in word recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 55, 1307–1337.
25.
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. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.12
26.
KlieglR.RisseS.LaubrockJ. (2007). Preview benefit and parafoveal-on-foveal effects from word n+ 2. Journal of Experi-mental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 1250–1255. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.33.5.1250
LeeH. W.LeggeG. E.OrtizA. (2003). Is word recognition different in central and peripheral vision?Vision Research, 43, 2837–2846. doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(03)00479-6
29.
MatinE. (1974). Saccadic suppression: A review and an analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 899–917. doi:10.1037/h0037368
30.
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. doi:10.1016/0042-6989(88)90137-X
31.
McConkieG. W.RaynerR. (1975). The span of the effective stimulus during a fixation in reading. Perception & Psychophysics, 17, 578–586. doi:10.3758/BF03203972
32.
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.
33.
NiefindF.DimigenO. (2016). Dissociating parafoveal preview benefit and parafovea-on-fovea effects during reading: A combined eye tracking and EEG study. Psychophysiology, 53, 1784–1798. doi:10.1111/psyp.12765
34.
PollatsekA.LeschM.MorrisR. K.RaynerK. (1992). Phonological codes are used in integrating information across saccades in word identification and reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 148–162. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.18.1.148
35.
R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org
36.
RaynerK. (1975). The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 65–81. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(75)90005-5
37.
RaynerK.DuffyS. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition, 14, 191–201. doi:10.3758/BF03197692
38.
RaynerK.WarrenT.JuhaszB. J.LiversedgeS. P. (2004). The effect of plausibility on eye movements in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 1290–1301. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.30.6.1290
39.
RaynerK.WellA. D.PollatsekA. (1980). Asymmetry of the effective visual field in reading. Perception & Psychophysics, 27, 537–544.
40.
RaynerK.WellA. D.PollatsekA.BerteraJ. H. (1982). The availability of useful information to the right of fixation in reading. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 31, 537–550.
41.
ReichleE. D.DriegheD. (2015). Using EZ Reader to examine the consequences of fixation-location measurement error. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 262–270. doi:10.1037/a0037090
42.
ReichleE. D.PollatsekA.FisherD. L.RaynerK. (1998). Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. Psychological Review, 105, 125–157. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.105.1.125
43.
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
44.
RisseS.HohensteinS.KlieglR.EngbertR. (2014). A theoretical analysis of the perceptual span based on SWIFT simulations of the n+ 2 boundary paradigm. Visual Cognition, 22, 283–308. doi:10.1080/13506285.2014.881444
45.
RisseS.KlieglR. (2012). Evidence for delayed parafoveal-on-foveal effects from word n + 2 in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 1026–1042. doi:10.1037/a0027735
46.
RisseS.KlieglR. (2014). Dissociating preview validity and preview difficulty in parafoveal processing of word n + 1 during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Per-ception and Performance, 40, 653–668. doi:10.1037/a0034997
47.
SchadD. J.EngbertR. (2012). The zoom lens of attention: Simulating shuffled versus normal text reading using the SWIFT model. Visual Cognition, 20, 391–421. doi:10.1080/13506285.2012.670143
48.
SchiepersC. (1980). Response latency and accuracy in visual word recognition. Perception & Psychophysics, 27, 71–81. doi:10.3758/BF03199908
49.
SchotterE. R. (2013). Synonyms provide semantic preview benefit in English. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 619–633. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2013.09.002
SchotterE. R.LeinengerM. (2016). Reversed preview benefit effects: Forced fixations emphasize the importance of parafoveal vision for efficient reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42, 2039–2067. doi:10.1037/xhp0000270
52.
SchroyensW.VituF.BrysbaertM.d’YdewalleG. (1999). Eye movement control during reading: Foveal load and parafoveal processing. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 52, 1021–1046. doi:10.1080/713755859
53.
SlatteryT.AngeleB.RaynerK. (2011). Eye movements and display change detection during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 1924–1938. doi:10.1037/a0024322
54.
SnellJ.VituF.GraingerJ. (2017). Integration of parafoveal orthographic information during foveal word reading: Beyond the sub-lexical level?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 1984–1996. doi:10.1080/17470218.2016.1217247
55.
VasilevM. R.AngeleB. (2017). Parafoveal preview effects from word N + 1 and word N + 2 during reading: A critical review and Bayesian meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 666–689. doi:10.3758/s13423-016-1147-x
56.
von der MalsburgT.AngeleB. (2017). False positives and other statistical errors in standard analyses of eye movements in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 119–133. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2016.10.003
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.
