Parafoveal-on-Foveal Effects in Reading and Word Recognition

  • Alan Kennedy
Chapter

Abstract

In this Chapter, I want to raise some questions concerning the ‘attention-switching’ model of eye movement control in reading first proposed by Morrison (1984). A basic assumption of this model is that after a criterion level of processing has been reached on a given word n (for example, lexical access), attention will shift discretely to the next word, n+1, while the eyes remain fixating n. At the same time as this attentional shift takes place, an eye movement is programmed towards word n+1. Thus, for a period of time, a reader may be fixating word n, preparing to make a saccade, and processing word n+1. If the processing of word n+1 is completed before the saccade takes place, a further switch of attention (to word n+2) may occur and a second saccade will be programmed, in parallel with the first. The way the oculomotor system deals with simultaneous programming of more than one saccade depends on their relative timing (Becker and Jurgens 1979). If the trigger commands are widely separated in time, both saccades may be executed, but the duration of the fixation following the first may be drastically reduced. If the delay is short, only the second saccade will be initiated. Between these limits, a ‘compromise’ saccade may be launched, to an intermediate target position.

Keywords

Target Word Word Recognition Word Frequency Fixation Duration Inspection Time 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Balota D A (1990) The role of meaning in word recognition. In: Balota D A, Flores d’Arcais G B, Rayner K (eds) Comprehension processes in reading. Erlbaum, Hillsdale N.J., pp 9–32Google Scholar
  2. Becker W, Jürgens R (1979) An analysis of the saccadic system by means of double-step stimuli. Vision Res 19: 967–983PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bouma H (1971) Visual recognition of isolated lower case letters. Vision Res 11: 459–474PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bouma H (1973) Visual interference in the parafoveal recognition of initial and final letters of words. Vision Res 13:767–782PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. CELEX German database (1995) Release D25. Nijmegen Centre for Lexical InformationGoogle Scholar
  6. Henderson J M, Ferreira F (1990) Effects of foveal processing difficulty on the perceptual span in reading: Implications for attention and eye movement control. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cognit 16: 417–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Henderson J M, Ferreira F (1993) Eye movement control during reading: Fixation measures foveal but not parafoveal processing difficulty. Can J Exp Psychol 47: 201–221PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kennedy A (1998) The influence of parafoveal words on foveal inspection time: evidence for a processing tradeoff. In: Underwood G (ed) Eye guidance in reading, driving and scene perception. Oxford, Elsevier (in press)Google Scholar
  9. Kennedy A, Murray W S (1996) Eye movement control during the inspection of words under conditions of pulsating illumination. Eur J Cognit Psychol 8: 381–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kennison S M, Clifton C (1995) Determinants of parafoveal preview benefit in high and low working memory capacity readers: Implications for eye movement control. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cognit 21: 68–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Morrison R E (1984) Manipulation of stimulus onset delay in reading: Evidence for parallel programming of sac-cades. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 10: 667–682PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Murray W S (1982) Sentence matching: The influence of meaning and structure. Unpublished PhD Thesis Monash University, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  13. Murray W S, Rowan M (1998) Early, Mandatory, Pragmatic Processing. J Psycholing Res 27: 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. O’Regan J K (1989) Visual acuity, lexical structure and eye movements in word recognition. In: Elsendoorn B, Bouma H (eds) Working models of human perception. London, Academic Press, pp 261–292Google Scholar
  15. O’Regan J K (1990) Eye movements and reading. In: Kowler E (ed.) Eye movements and their role in visual and cognitive processes. Amsterdam, Elsevier, pp 395–453Google Scholar
  16. O’Regan J K, Levy-Schoen A (1987) Eye movement strategy and tactics in word-recognition and reading. In: Coltheart M (ed) Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading. Hillsdale, Erlbaum, pp 363–383Google Scholar
  17. Radach R (1996) Blickbewegungen beim Lesen: Psychologische Aspekte der Determination von Fixationsposi-tionen (Eye movements in reading). Münster, WaxmannGoogle Scholar
  18. Rayner K (1995) Eye movements and cognitive processes in reading, visual search, and scene perception. In: Findlay J M, Walker R, Kentridge R W (eds) Eye movement research: mechanisms, processes and applications. Amsterdam, North-Holland, pp 3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rayner K, Pollatsek A (1989) The psychology of reading. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar
  20. Rayner K, Sereno S C, Raney G E (1996) Eye movement control in reading: A comparison of two types of models. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 22: 1–13Google Scholar
  21. Reichle E D, Pollatsek A, Fisher D L, Rayner K (1998) Towards a model of eye movement control in reading. Psychol Rev 105:125–157PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schiepers C (1980) Response latency and accuracy in visual word recognition. Percept Psychophys 27: 71–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schroyens W, Vitu F, Brysbaert M, d’Ydewalle G (1998) Visual attention and eye movement control during reading: The case of parafoveal processing. In: Underwood G (ed) Eye guidance in reading, driving and scene perception. Oxford, Elsevier (in press)Google Scholar
  24. Vitu F, O’Regan J K (1995) A challenge to current theories of eye movements in reading. In: Findlay J M, Walker R, Kentridge R W (eds) Eye movement research: mechanisms, processes and applications. Amsterdam, North-Holland, pp 382–392Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alan Kennedy
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentUniversity of DundeeUK

Personalised recommendations