Eye movements and brain electric potentials during reading

Kliegl, Reinhold; Dambacher, Michael; Dimigen, Olaf; Jacobs, Arthur; Sommer, Werner

doi:10.1007/s00426-011-0376-x

Cited by 55 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 53 publications

(60 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Optimal performance may be achieved under (near)-normal conditions that limit the time for word processing. Hence, this result contributes to the link between the timelines of word recognition from ERPs and from eye movements during natural reading (cf., Kliegl, Dambacher, Dimigen, Jacobs, & Sommer, 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This summation of ERP components alters the wave shape, such that also absolute amplitude maxima can be shifted. Yet, considering that an SOA of 280 ms presumably involves -at least partly -parallel processing of consecutive words (Dambacher & Kliegl, 2007;Kliegl et al, 2012), it is also possible that the eN1 deflection and the subsequent delay of components was co-determined by specific lexical processes at a near-normal reading rate. While the exact meanings of constituents in the altered ERP morphology remain subject to future research, the observation that especially the ERPs at the fastest display rate differ from those at slower SOAs lines up with the evidence for a particular role of a natural reading rate.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Certainly, even with a normal presentation rate, the RSVP procedure remains artificial and can only approximate natural reading where subjects move their eyes freely across sentences at their own pace (cf., Ditman et al, 2007;Nieuwland & Van Berkum, 2006 ; see also Baccino & Manunta, 2005;Dimigen et al, 2009;Dimigen, Kliegl, & Sommer, in press;Hutzler, Braun, Vo, Engl, Hofmann, Dambacher et al, 2007;Kretzschmar, Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, & Schlesewsky, 2009;Kliegl et al, 2012;Simola, Holmqvist, & Lindgren, 2009). There is reason to believe that this technique has the potential to provide novel insights not only into the timeline of word recognition but into visual perception in general.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Stimulus onset asynchrony and the timeline of word recognition: Event-related potentials during sentence reading

et al. 2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Article in press in Neuropsychologia [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.04.011] Please note that this unproofed preprint may be subject to minor changes. [May 5, 2012] SOA and the Timeline of Word Recognition 2 AbstractThree ERP experiments examined the effect of word presentation rate (i.e., stimulus onset asynchrony, SOA) on the time course of word frequency and predictability effects in sentence reading. In Experiments 1 and 2, sentences were presented word-by-word in the screen center at an SOA of 700 and 490 ms, respectively. While these rates are typical for psycholinguistic ERP research, natural reading happens at a considerably faster pace. Accordingly, Experiment 3 employed a near-normal SOA of 280 ms, which approximated the rate of normal reading. Main results can be summarized as follows: (1) The onset latency of early frequency effects decreases gradually with increasing presentation rates. (2) An early interaction between top-down and bottom-up processing is observed only under a nearnormal SOA. (3) N400 predictability effects occur later and are smaller at a near-normal (i.e., high) presentation rate than at the lower rates commonly used in ERP experiments. (4) ERP morphology is different at the shortest compared to longer SOAs. Together, the results point to a special role of a near-normal presentation rate for visual word recognition and therefore suggest that SOA should be taken into account in research of natural reading.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Stimulus onset asynchrony and the timeline of word recognition: Event-related potentials during sentence reading

et al. 2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This statistical approach offers considerable advantages over traditional analyses of variance approaches for the dataset and questions of the current study. LMMs are particularly well suited to datasets such as those collected in this study because they are able to deal with uneven distributions of data between conditions in the design, they can combine continuous and categorical factors within the same model, and they can measure variance across subjects and items simultaneously (Kliegl et al 2012). Given the known link between fixation time and memory (e.g., Hollingworth & Henderson, 2002), any account of effects of task or manipulation of objects on memory must take into account any differences that these factors have on fixation times.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Priorities for representation: Task settings and object interaction both influence object memory

Kirtley

Tatler

2015

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following an active task, the memory representations for used and unused objects are different. However, it is not clear whether these differences arise due to prioritizing objects that are task-relevant, objects that are physically interacted with, or a combination of the two factors. The present study allowed us to tease apart the relative importance of task-relevance and physical manipulation on object memory. A paradigm was designed in which objects were either necessary to complete a task (target), moved out of the way (obstructing, but interacted with), or simply present in the environment (background). Participants' eye movements were recorded with a portable tracker during the task, and they received a memory test on the objects after the task was completed. Results showed that manipulating an object is sufficient to change how information is extracted and retained from fixations, compared to background objects. Taskrelevance provides an additional influence: information is accumulated and retained differently for manipulated target objects than manipulated obstructing objects. These findings demonstrate that object memory is influenced both by whether we physically interact with an object, and the relevance of that object to our behavioral goals.Keywords Action . Perception . Memory . Intention . Real-worldIn everyday life, we perform actions in order to achieve a goal, informed by perceptual input about the current state of the environment. Despite this strong link between perception and action, it is only more recently that this has been represented in cognitive theories; in particular, those of grounded cognition. There are multiple iterations of these theories (see e.g., Wilson, 2002), but they all make the same underlying proposal: that perception and action are more than low-level input/output devices: instead, they are both dynamic and inter-related processes which allow us to navigate and work within our environment.There is growing evidence that action influences perception. Laboratory-based tasks have demonstrated how preparing an action can affect the performance of visual search tasks: for example, Fagioli, Hommel, and Schubotz (2007) showed that, depending on the gesture prepared prior to search (either pointing or grasping), detection of an oddball target stimulus was facilitated if the gesture was compatible with the relevant feature of the target. Thus, preparing pointing actions facilitated the detection of location-defined stimuli, while preparing grasping actions assisted the detection of size-defined stimuli. Similar results were found in a change detection study (Symes, Tucker, Ellis, Vainio, and Ottoboni, 2008). By preparing a particular grip type (power or precision), changes made to stimuli compatible with the size of the grip aperture were spotted faster and more accurately than changes to the grip-incompatible objects. In both cases, it is apparent that the mere preparation of a particular gesture is enough to bias attention to those items in a scene containing some fe...

show abstract

“…In this task, subjects are asked to guess the next word, given the previous words of a sentence (Taylor 1953)-the proportion ! Kliegl, Dambacher, Dimigen, & Sommer (2014) C of correct guesses serves as an index of predictability (cloze probability); that is, words are predicted from the prior context in the absence of the visual word form.…”

Section: Brain Potentialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Oculomotor Control, Brain Potentials, and Timelines of Word Recognition During Natural Reading

Kliegl

Dambacher

Dimigen

et al. 2013

Current Trends in Eye Tracking Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eye movements and brain electric potentials during reading

Cited by 55 publications

References 53 publications

Stimulus onset asynchrony and the timeline of word recognition: Event-related potentials during sentence reading

Stimulus onset asynchrony and the timeline of word recognition: Event-related potentials during sentence reading

Priorities for representation: Task settings and object interaction both influence object memory

Oculomotor Control, Brain Potentials, and Timelines of Word Recognition During Natural Reading

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About