On the Processing of Meaning from Parafoveal Vision During Eye Fixations in Reading

Abstract

Research dealing with parafoveal processing during eye fixations is reviewed. Four main topics are addressed: (1) parafoveal processing, (2) word skipping, (3) preview benefit effects, and (4) parafoveal-on-foveal effects. We argue that word skipping effects reflect the fact that a parafoveal word (word n+1) has been identified on the fixation on word n. We also review evidence which strongly suggests that preview benefits during reading are not due to semantic processing of a parafoveal word. Finally, we review the more recent and more controversial research suggesting that the meaning of word n+1 can influence the fixation time on word n, and argue that it is premature at this point to accept the validity of such findings with respect to normal reading. Implications of the research for serial attention shift models like the E-Z Reader model are also discussed. 4 While a great deal has been learned about eye movements during reading over the past twenty-five to thirty years (Liversedge & Findlay, 2000;Rayner, 1978Rayner, , 1998, there remain a number of unresolved issues (Starr & Rayner, 2001). In this chapter, we will focus our discussion on research related to one of these unresolved issues: parafoveal semantic processing of words. Research on this issue has apparently gained momentum because it has been assumed that if there were so-called parafoveal-on-foveal effects, or evidence that the meaning of the word to the right of fixation influences the duration of the fixation on the currently fixated word, it would be damaging to serial attention shift models such as the E-Z Reader model (Reichle, Pollatsek, Fisher, & Rayner, 1998). We will return to this issue at the end of the chapter. However, before discussing the relevance of such research for the E-Z Reader model, we will first provide a general review of research on parafoveal processing and then discuss in turn (1) word skipping, (2) preview benefit effects, and (3) parafoveal-onfoveal effects.We argue that readers can identify word n+1 while fixating word n. When they do, its meaning becomes available and can influence fixation times on word n (and also word n+2). Furthermore, if word n+1 is identified, then the reader will skip that word. However, the primary argument we will make in this chapter is that if word n+1 is not identified then its meaning does not become available and therefore cannot affect fixation time on word n. In such a situation, word n+1 will typically not be skipped but must be fixated in order for word identification to occur. We argue that it would be premature at this point to accept evidence from studies that claim to show parafoveal-on-foveal effects as being very strong. Some of the evidence is based on tasks that may or may not easily generalize to reading and some of the evidence is inconsistent: while there are some studies showing parafoveal-on-foveal effects, there are also a number of studies that do not show such effects. While we will argue against the validity of some claims regarding parafoveal-on-foveal...

Eye movement control during reading: Effects of word frequency and orthographic familiarity.

“…Note that the longer fixation durations in the infrequent, compared to frequent word conditions is characterised by a rightward shift in the distribution, consistent with previous studies (Rayner, 1995;Rayner, Liversedge et al, 2003). Numerical differences in the distributions between the frequent and infrequent orthographically familiar conditions occur no earlier than differences in the distributions between the orthographically familiar and unfamiliar infrequent word conditions.…”

“…In contrast, for both sets of analyses for orthographically familiar words there was no difference in prior fixation duration between the frequent and infrequent conditions (ts < 1). 6 It has been suggested that parafoveal-on-foveal effects can sometimes occur as a result of inaccurate saccade targeting (Drieghe et al, 2007;Rayner, Warren et al, 2004;Rayner, White et al, 2003). However, if the parafoveal-on-foveal effects reported above had arisen due to mistargeting of saccades, then there perhaps also should have been a parafoveal-on-foveal effect of word frequency.…”

“…However such models can not necessarily account for some linguistic influences on reading behaviour, such as the following frequency effects: on the first of multiple first Word frequency and orthographic familiarity 8 pass fixations on a word (Rayner et al, 1996); in the absence of visual information (Liversedge, Rayner, White, Vergilino-Perez, Findlay, & Kentridge, 2004;Rayner, Liversedge et al, 2003); or on gaze durations that can not be explained by a number of very long fixations or gaze durations (Rayner, 1995;Rayner, Liversedge et al, 2003).…”

“…Engbert et al, 2005;Reichle et al, 1999). Reichle et al (2003) suggest that low spatial frequency information (such as ascenders and descenders) might influence saccade programming, however they do not specify exactly what influence this information would have on where words are fixated (Liversedge & White, 2003).…”

“…In contrast, it has been suggested (Deubel, O'Regan, & Radach, 2000; Nazir, 2000), and models have proposed (McConkie & Yang, 2003; O'Regan, 1990 O'Regan, , 1992Reilly & O'Regan, 1998;Suppes, 1990;Yang & McConkie, 2001;Yang, 2006), that eye movements are largely controlled by visual and oculomotor factors and that linguistic processes have a smaller influence, for example by delaying or cancelling programmed saccades. However such models can not necessarily account for some linguistic influences on reading behaviour, such as the following frequency effects: on the first of multiple first Word frequency and orthographic familiarity 8 pass fixations on a word (Rayner et al, 1996); in the absence of visual information (Liversedge, Rayner, White, Vergilino-Perez, Findlay, & Kentridge, 2004;Rayner, Liversedge et al, 2003); or on gaze durations that can not be explained by a number of very long fixations or gaze durations (Rayner, 1995;Rayner, Liversedge et al, 2003).Linguistic factors therefore have a critical role in influencing eye movement behaviour during reading and visual and/or oculomotor based models can not fully account for reading eye movement behaviour. However, the issue of precisely how linguistic processing influences when and where the eyes move during reading is far from resolved.…”