Eye movements as time-series random variables: A stochastic model of eye movement control in reading

Feng, Ganjun

doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2005.07.004

Cited by 74 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, both models address the specific task of conjunctive visual search and are limited to static scenes. Other exceptions are given, but in the very peculiar field of eye-movements in reading [47].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The rationale is that if observed gaze shifts are generated by an underlying stochastic process, the distribution functions and the temporal dynamics of eye movements should be completely specified by the stochastic process [47]. At the same time, different stochastic processes often yield different marginal distribution functions in the outcome variables; thus, knowing the precise distribution functions of a RV should suggest plausible generative mechanisms and rule out improbable ones.…”

Section: Simulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ecological Sampling of Gaze Shifts

Boccignone

Ferraro

2014

IEEE Trans. Cybern.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Visual attention guides our gaze to relevant parts of the viewed scene, yet the moment-to-moment relocation of gaze can be different among observers even though the same locations are taken into account. Surprisingly, the variability of eye movements has been so far overlooked by the great majority of computational models of visual attention. In this paper we present the ecological sampling model, a stochastic model of eye guidance explaining such variability. The gaze shift mechanism is conceived as an active random sampling that the foraging eye carries out upon the visual landscape, under the constraints set by the observable features and the global complexity of the landscape. By drawing on results reported in the foraging literature, the actual gaze relocation is eventually driven by a stochastic differential equation whose noise source is sampled from a mixture of α-stable distributions. This way, the sampling strategy proposed here allows to mimic a fundamental property of the eye guidance mechanism: where we choose to look next at any given moment in time, it is not completely deterministic, but neither is it completely random To show that the model yields gaze shift motor behaviors that exhibit statistics similar to those displayed by human observers, we compare simulation outputs with those obtained from eye-tracked subjects while viewing complex dynamic scenes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Simulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecological Sampling of Gaze Shifts

Boccignone

Ferraro

2014

IEEE Trans. Cybern.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…M 1 is a labile stage, which means that the saccade that is programmed during this stage can be canceled. The second 10 In addition to E-Z Reader and SWIFT, other models of eye movement control include Glenmore (Reilly & Radach, 2006), Mr. Chips (Legge, Klitz, & Tjan, 1997), EMMA (Salvucci, 2001), SERIF (McDonald, Carpenter, & Shillcock, 2005), competition/activation (Yang, 2006;Yang & McConkie, 2001), and SHARE (Feng, 2006). For a comparison of many of these models, see Reichle, Rayner, and Pollatsek (2003). stage, M 2 , follows M 1 and triggers the saccade when it finishes and is a nonlabile stage; it cannot be canceled.…”

Section: The E-z Reader Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parafoveal processing in reading

Schotter

Angele

Rayner

2011

Atten Percept Psychophys

445

459

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present review summarizes research investigating how words are identified parafoveally (and foveally) in reading. Parafoveal and foveal processing are compared when no other concurrent task is required (e.g., in singleword recognition tasks) and when both are required simultaneously (e.g., during reading). We first review methodologies used to study parafoveal processing (e.g., corpus analyses and experimental manipulations, including gaze-contingent display change experiments such as the boundary, moving window, moving mask, and fast priming paradigms). We then turn to a discussion of the levels of representation at which words are processed (e.g., orthographic, phonological, morphological, lexical, syntactic, and semantic). Next, we review relevant research regarding parafoveal processing, summarizing the extent to which words are processed at each of those levels of representation. We then review some of the most controversial aspects of parafoveal processing, as they relate to reading: (1) word skipping, (2) parafoveal-on-foveal effects, and (3) n + 1 and n + 2 preview benefit effects. Finally, we summarize two of the most advanced models of eye movements during reading and how they address foveal and parafoveal processing.

show abstract

“…Currently, the E-Z Reader model can be considered the gold standard against which other successful computational models are tested (e.g., Engbert, Nuthmann, Richter, & Kliegl, 2005;Feng, 2006;McDonald, Carpenter, & Shillcock, 2005;Reilly & Radach, 2006;Richter, Engbert, & Kliegl, 2006;Yang, 2006). We hope that the current theoretical debate will add momentum to the discussion of key assumptions of this and other models of eye movement control in reading.…”

Section: The Relationship Between Attention Shifting and Saccade Progmentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporal overlap in the linguistic processing of successive words in reading: Reply to Pollatsek, Reichle, and Rayner (2006a).

Inhoff

Radach

Eiter

2006

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

Eye movements as time-series random variables: A stochastic model of eye movement control in reading

Cited by 74 publications

References 48 publications

Ecological Sampling of Gaze Shifts

Ecological Sampling of Gaze Shifts

Parafoveal processing in reading

Temporal overlap in the linguistic processing of successive words in reading: Reply to Pollatsek, Reichle, and Rayner (2006a).

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About