Sequential attention shift models of reading predict that an attended (typically fixated) word must be recognized before useful linguistic information can be obtained from the following (parafoveal) word. These models also predict that linguistic information is obtained from a parafoveal word immediately prior to a saccade toward it. To test these assumptions, sentences were constructed with a critical pretarget-target word sequence, and the temporal availability of the (parafoveal) target preview was manipulated while the pretarget word was fixated. Target viewing effects, examined as a function of prior target visibility, revealed that extraction of linguistic target information began 70-140 ms after the onset of pretarget viewing. Critically, acquisition of useful linguistic information from a target was not confined to the ending period of pretarget viewing. These results favor theoretical conceptions in which there is some temporal overlap in the linguistic processing of a fixated and parafoveally visible word during reading. Keywordsreading; attention; parafoveal preview; alternating case; parallel processing Written language consists of a spatially ordered sequence of symbols, many of which are concurrently available to a reader. High-acuity vision is confined to a relatively small retinal area at any point in time that roughly corresponds to the fovea and immediately adjacent parafovea, so that only a limited amount of visual detail can be discerned when the eyes gaze at (fixate) a particular text location. Hence, readers need to move the eyes at or near a word to recognize it. Normal reading thus requires the development of a task-specific skill, that is, the dynamic coordination of eye movement (saccade) programming with successful visual word recognition and text comprehension.Effects of this coordination are evident in the general progression of eye movements with word order and in robust effects of a word's spatial and linguistic properties on its viewing pattern (see Kennedy, 2004, andRayner, 1998, for reviews). The coordination of eye movement programming with linguistic processes does not require, however, that the eyes are always moved from one word to the next. Although interword saccades to consecutive words Copyright 2005 by the American Psychological AssociationCorrespondence concerning this article should be addressed to Albrecht W. Inhoff, Department of Psychology, Binghamton University, State University of New York, Binghamton, NY 13902-6000. E-mail: E-mail: inhoff@binghamton.edu. NIH Public Access NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscriptin the text are the most common type of eye movement during skilled reading, there is a relatively large proportion of other saccades (Hogaboam, 1983) that move the eyes to a different location within the same word (refixations), to a word beyond the next word in the text (skipping), or to a previously read word (interword regressions). The frequency with which these saccades are executed is a function of word and...

Two experiments examined readers' use of parafoveally obtained word length information for word recognition. Both experiments manipulated the length (number of constituent characters) of a parafoveally previewed target word so that it was either accurately or inaccurately specified. In Experiment 1, previews also either revealed or denied useful orthographic information. In Experiment 2, parafoveal targets were either high-or low-frequency words. Eye movement contingent display changes were used to show the intact target upon its fixation. Examination of target viewing duration showed completely additive effects of word length previews and of orthographic previews in Experiment 1, viewing duration being shorter in the accurate-length and the orthographic preview conditions. Experiment 2 showed completely additive effects of word length and word frequency, target viewing being shorter in the accurate-length and the highfrequency conditions. Together these results indicate that functionally distinct subsystems control the use of parafoveally visible spatial and linguistic information in reading. Parafoveally visible spatial information appears to be used for two distinct extralinguistic computations: visual object selection and saccade specification.Written text differs fundamentally from spoken language in that its symbols are ordered in space rather than in time. Furthermore, alphabetic writing systems use visually distinct cues, Requests for reprints should be sent to

No abstract

A. Pollatsek, E. D. Reichle, and K. Rayner (2006a) argue that the critical findings inA. W. Inhoff, B. M. Eiter, and R. Radach (2005) are in general agreement with core assumptions of sequential attention shift models if additional assumptions and facts are considered. The current authors critically discuss the hypothesized time line of processing and indicate that the success of Pollatsek et al.'s simulation is predicated on a gross underestimation of the pretarget word's viewing duration in Inhoff et al. and that the actual data are difficult to reconcile with the strictly serial attention shift assumption. The authors also discuss attention shifting and saccade programming assumptions in the E-Z Reader model and conclude that these are not in harmony with research in related domains of study. Keywordssaccade; attention; word recognition; reading In our article on the time course of extracting information from consecutive words during eye fixations in reading (Inhoff, Eiter, & Radach, 2005), we concluded that the time course of parafoveal information usage in Experiment 2 of our study favored a theoretical conception according to which extraction of linguistic information from spatially adjacent words in the text need not be strictly serial, as maintained by sequential attention shift (SAS) models of eye movement control in reading. Instead, we favored an attentional gradient conception.In their comment on our article, Pollatsek, Reichle, and Rayner (2006a) defend the strictly serial word-processing assumption. They point to theoretical shortcomings in our critical Experiment 2, notably our neglect of a 50-ms visual transmission (VT) time that is also referred to as eye-to-mind lag. They also express some methodological reservations. Critically, they present an E-Z Reader model simulation that appears to be in agreement with our Experiment 2 data once VT time is considered.In their comments on our study, Pollatsek et al. (2006a) first reiterate central theoretical claims of SAS models, including the E-Z Reader model, to clarify their position on serial processing and thus to illuminate what the controversy is about. They go on to critique several specific

Three experiments examined whether the identification of a visual word is followed by its subvocal articulation during reading. An irrelevant spoken word (ISW) that was identical, phonologically similar, or dissimilar to a visual target word was presented when the eyes moved to the target in the course of sentence reading. Sentence reading was further accompanied by either a sequential finger tapping task (Experiment 1) or an articulatory suppression task (Experiment 2). Experiment 1 revealed sound-specific interference from a phonologically similar ISW during posttarget viewing. This interference was absent in Experiment 2, where similar and dissimilar ISWs impeded target and posttarget reading equally. Experiment 3 showed that articulatory suppression left the lexical processing of visual words intact and that it did not diminish the influence of visual word recognition on eye guidance. The presence of sound-specific interference during posttarget reading in Experiment 1 is attributed to deleterious effects of a phonologically similar ISW on the subvocal articulation of a target. Its absence in Experiment 2 is attributed to the suppression of a target's subvocal articulation.