Effects of foveal processing difficulty on the perceptual span in reading: Implications for attention and eye movement control.

Author(s):  
John M. Henderson ◽  
Fernanda Ferreira
2003 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 500-501 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eyal M. Reingold

It is argued here that a critical prediction of the E-Z Reader model is that experimental manipulations that disrupt early encoding of visual and orthographic features of the fixated word without affecting subsequent lexical processing should influence the processing difficulty of the fixated word without producing any processing effect on the next word. This prediction is explained and illustrated.


1986 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 123-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Pollatsek ◽  
Keith Rayner ◽  
David A. Balota

2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tessa Warren ◽  
Erik D. Reichle ◽  
Nikole D. Patson

The current study investigated how a post-lexical complexity manipulation followed by a lexical complexity manipulation affects eye movements during reading. Both manipulations caused disruption in all measures on the manipulated words, but the patterns of spillover differed. Critically, the effects of the two kinds of manipulations did not interact, and there was no evidence that post-lexical processing difficulty delayed lexical processing on the next word (c.f. Henderson & Ferreira, 1990). This suggests that post-lexical processing of one word and lexical processing of the next can proceed independently and likely in parallel. This finding is consistent with the assumptions of the E-Z Reader model of eye movement control in reading (Reichle, Warren, & McConnell, 2009).


1999 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 695-696 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Pollatsek ◽  
Keith Rayner

We are largely in agreement with the Findlay & Walker model. However, they appear to dismiss the role of covert spatial attention in tasks in which people are free to move their eyes. We argue that an account of the facts about the perceptual span in reading requires a window of attention not centered around the fovea. Moreover, a computational model of reading that we (Reichle et al. 1998) developed gives a good account of eye movement control in reading and would be unable to do so without relying heavily on covert attention.


2018 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 179-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victoria A McGowan ◽  
Erik D Reichle

Eye-movement studies have demonstrated that, relative to college-aged readers, older readers of alphabetic languages like English and German tend to read more slowly, making more frequent and longer fixations and longer saccades, and skipping more words, but also making more frequent regressions. These findings have led to suggestions that older readers either adopt a “risky” strategy of using context to “guess” words as a way of compensating for slower rates of lexical processing, or have a smaller and more asymmetrical perceptual span. Unfortunately, neither of these hypotheses seemingly explains more recent observations that older readers of Chinese seem to adopt a more “conservative” strategy, making shorter saccades and skipping less often. In this paper, we use the E-Z Reader model of eye-movement control to examine several possible accounts of the differences between college-aged and older readers of both alphabetic and non-alphabetic languages. These simulations re-confirm that the “risky” strategy may be sufficient to explain age-related differences in reader’s eye movements, with older readers of English versus Chinese being, respectively, more versus less inclined to guess upcoming words. The implications of these results for aging, reading, and models of eye-movement control are discussed.


2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erik D. Reichle ◽  
Lesley A. Hart ◽  
Charles A. Perfetti

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document