The authors present several versions of a general model, titled the E-Z Reader model, of eye movement control in reading. The major goal of the modeling is to relate cognitive processing (specifically aspects of lexical access) to eye movements in reading. The earliest and simplest versions of the model (E-Z Readers 1 and 2) merely attempt to explain the total time spent on a word before moving forward (the gaze duration) and the probability of fixating a word; later versions (E-Z Readers 3-5) also attempt to explain the durations of individual fixations on individual words and the number of fixations on individual words. The final version (E-Z Reader 5) appears to be psychologically plausible and gives a good account of many phenomena in reading. It is also a good tool for analyzing eye movement data in reading. Limitations of the model and directions for future research are also discussed.

The E-Z Reader model (Reichle et al. 1998; 1999) provides a theoretical framework for understanding how word identification, visual processing, attention, and oculomotor control jointly determine when and where the eyes move during reading. In this article, we first review what is known about eye movements during reading. Then we provide an updated version of the model (E-Z Reader 7) and describe how it accounts for basic findings about eye movement control in reading. We then review several alternative models of eye movement control in reading, discussing both their core assumptions and their theoretical scope. On the basis of this discussion, we conclude that E-Z Reader provides the most comprehensive account of eye movement control during reading. Finally, we provide a brief overview of what is known about the neural systems that support the various components of reading, and suggest how the cognitive constructs of our model might map onto this neural architecture.

No abstract

Young adult and older readers' eye movements were recorded as they read sentences containing target words that varied in frequency or predictability. In addition, half of the sentences were printed in a font that was easy to read (Times New Roman) and the other half were printed in a font that was more difficult to read (Old English). Word frequency, word predictability, and font difficulty effects were apparent in the eye movement data of both groups of readers. In the fixation time data, the pattern of results was the same, but the older readers had larger frequency and predictability effects than the younger readers. The older readers skipped words more often than the younger readers (as indicated by their skipping rate on selected target words), but they made more regressions back to the target words and more regressions overall. The E-Z Reader model was used as a platform to evaluate the results, and simulations using the model suggest that lexical processing is slowed in older readers and that, possibly as a result of this, they adopt a more risky reading strategy.

Readers read sentences containing target words varying in frequency and predictability. The observed pattern of data for fixation durations only mildly departed from additivity, with predictability effects that were slightly larger for low-frequency than for high-frequency words. The pattern of data for skipping was different as predictability affected only the probability of skipping for high-frequency target words. Simulations of these data using the E-Z Reader model indicated that a single-process model was unlikely to provide a good fit for both measures. A version of the model that assumes that (a) word-encoding time is additively affected by frequency and predictability and (b) difficulty with postlexical processing of the target word causes a double take accounted for the data while indicating that the relationship between the duration of hypothesized word-encoding stages and observed fixation durations is not likely to be transparent.

No abstract

A major issue in reading is the extent to which phonological information is used in visual word perception. The present experiments demonstrated that phonological information acquired on 1 fixation from a word in the parafovea is used to help identify that word when it is later fixated. A homophone of a target word, when presented as a preview in the parafovea, facilitated processing of the target word seen on the next fixation more than a preview of a word matched with the homophone in visual similarity to the target word. This facilitation was observed both in the time to name an isolated target word and in the fixation time on the target word while silently reading a sentence; the preview was virtually never consciously identified in either task. Because the visual similarity of the preview to the target also plays a part in the facilitative effect on the preview, however, codes other than phonological codes are preserved across saccades.

Subjects read either normal text, text in which the space information between words was absent (either spaces were removed filled with x), or text in which spaces were preserved but the words were flanked by x. In two experiments, reading rate decreased by approx. 50% when space information was not available, suggesting that reading unspaced text is relatively difficult. The removal of space information increased the effect of word frequency on the fixation times for selected target words, indicating that word identification was interfered with by the lack of spaces. In addition, removal of space information influenced the initial landing positions on words, indicating that eye movement control was affected by the absence of spaces. Further analyses were conducted that explored the relationship between these two effects.