Reevaluating split-fovea processing in word recognition: Hemispheric dominance, retinal location, and the word-nonword effect

Jordan, Timothy R.; Paterson, Kevin B.; Kurtev, Stoyan

doi:10.3758/cabn.9.1.113

Cited by 13 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 79 publications

(104 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings support the well-established view that the LH is specialised for word recognition in alphabetic languages and provides further evidence that an LH advantage also occurs for languages, such as Arabic, that are read from right to left [31], [55]–[59]. However, this asymmetry in word recognition was observed only for extrafoveal displays and no indication of a functional division in hemispheric processing at the point of fixation was observed [4], [29], [30].…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 88%

“…Consequently, when words in Latinate languages are displayed to the left and right of fixation in experiments, beginning letters are closer to fixation when displayed to the right and the difference this causes in the visibility of beginning letter information may help produce a LH advantage (for further discussion, see [41]). More importantly, this left-right difference in beginning letter visibility between the two visual hemifields would be greater for stimuli further from fixation, and this may explain why LH advantages observed previously for words in extrafoveal locations have not also been observed in foveal locations [29], [30]. However, Arabic is read from right to left, and the importance of beginning letters in Arabic for determining word identity is much less, due to the nonconcatenative derivational morphology of Arabic [32], [44]–[52].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating Effects of Divided Hemispheric Processing on Word Recognition in Foveal and Extrafoveal Displays: The Evidence from Arabic

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPrevious studies have claimed that a precise split at the vertical midline of each fovea causes all words to the left and right of fixation to project to the opposite, contralateral hemisphere, and this division in hemispheric processing has considerable consequences for foveal word recognition. However, research in this area is dominated by the use of stimuli from Latinate languages, which may induce specific effects on performance. Consequently, we report two experiments using stimuli from a fundamentally different, non-Latinate language (Arabic) that offers an alternative way of revealing effects of split-foveal processing, if they exist.Methods and FindingsWords (and pseudowords) were presented to the left or right of fixation, either close to fixation and entirely within foveal vision, or further from fixation and entirely within extrafoveal vision. Fixation location and stimulus presentations were carefully controlled using an eye-tracker linked to a fixation-contingent display. To assess word recognition, Experiment 1 used the Reicher-Wheeler task and Experiment 2 used the lexical decision task.ResultsPerformance in both experiments indicated a functional division in hemispheric processing for words in extrafoveal locations (in recognition accuracy in Experiment 1 and in reaction times and error rates in Experiment 2) but no such division for words in foveal locations.ConclusionsThese findings from a non-Latinate language provide new evidence that although a functional division in hemispheric processing exists for word recognition outside the fovea, this division does not extend up to the point of fixation. Some implications for word recognition and reading are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Evaluating Effects of Divided Hemispheric Processing on Word Recognition in Foveal and Extrafoveal Displays: The Evidence from Arabic

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Jordan et al found a strong recognition advantage for words presented to the right of fixation in extrafoveal vision but no advantage for the same words presented to the right of fixation in foveal vision, despite the precaution that words in foveal vision were presented slightly away from fixation to avoid areas of bilateral projection, and extended towards the edges of the fovea where unilateral contralateral projections were most likely to exist. Consequently, these findings are consistent with a functional division in hemispheric projections for words encountered outside foveal vision but indicate no functional division for words within foveal vision (see also [25]). Other studies have provided similar evidence, using a variety of paradigms and procedures (see [3], [11] for reviews).…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 74%

“…To avoid midline areas of bilateral projection for foveal stimuli and to occupy foveal areas where unilateral contralateral projections are most likely to exist, the nasal edges of stimuli in foveal vision were presented 0.10 0 from fixation and stimuli extended to the temporal edges of foveal vision. The nasal edges of stimuli in extrafoveal vision were presented 2.00 0 from fixation, following previous research showing clear evidence of divided unilateral contralateral projections at this eccentricity and beyond (e.g., [2], [3], [5], [24], [25]). An eye-tracking system linked to a computer-controlled, fixation-contingent display ensured accurate fixation when each stimulus was presented, and ensured that all stimuli were displayed at precisely the required retinal locations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An ERP Assessment of Hemispheric Projections in Foveal and Extrafoveal Word Recognition

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe existence and function of unilateral hemispheric projections within foveal vision may substantially affect foveal word recognition. The purpose of this research was to reveal these projections and determine their functionality.MethodologySingle words (and pseudowords) were presented to the left or right of fixation, entirely within either foveal or extrafoveal vision. To maximize the likelihood of unilateral projections for foveal displays, stimuli in foveal vision were presented away from the midline. The processing of stimuli in each location was assessed by combining behavioural measures (reaction times, accuracy) with on-line monitoring of hemispheric activity using event-related potentials recorded over each hemisphere, and carefully-controlled presentation procedures using an eye-tracker linked to a fixation-contingent display.Principal FindingsEvent-related potentials 100–150 ms and 150–200 ms after stimulus onset indicated that stimuli in extrafoveal and foveal locations were projected unilaterally to the hemisphere contralateral to the presentation hemifield with no concurrent projection to the ipsilateral hemisphere. These effects were similar for words and pseudowords, suggesting this early division occurred before word recognition. Indeed, event-related potentials revealed differences between words and pseudowords 300–350 ms after stimulus onset, for foveal and extrafoveal locations, indicating that word recognition had now occurred. However, these later event-related potentials also revealed that the hemispheric division observed previously was no longer present for foveal locations but remained for extrafoveal locations. These findings closely matched the behavioural finding that foveal locations produced similar performance each side of fixation but extrafoveal locations produced left-right asymmetries.ConclusionsThese findings indicate that an initial division in unilateral hemispheric projections occurs in foveal vision away from the midline but is not apparent, or functional, when foveal word recognition actually occurs. In contrast, the division in unilateral hemispheric projections that occurs in extrafoveal locations is still apparent, and is functional, when extrafoveal word recognition takes place.

show abstract

“…But the view that reading is influenced by information acquired from only 3-4 characters to the left of fixation and no Postview Effects in Reading 4 further than the beginning of the fixated word is worthy of closer inspection. In particular, when considering the general properties of human vision, the visual system shows clear bilateral symmetry in the horizontal extent of visual input to the right and left of fixation, and this symmetry extends across the entire visual field (for reviews and discussion, see Jordan, Paterson, & Kurtev, 2009;Jordan, Paterson, & Stachurski, 2008, 2009). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A further look at postview effects in reading: An eye-movements study of influences from the left of fixation.

Jordan¹,

McGowan²,

Kurtev³

et al. 2016

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When reading from left to right, useful information acquired during each fixational pause is widely assumed to extend 14-15 characters to the right of fixation but just 3-4 characters to the left, and certainly no further than the beginning of the fixated word. However, this leftward extent is strikingly small and seems inconsistent with other aspects of reading performance and with the general horizontal symmetry of visual input. Accordingly, two experiments were conducted to examine the influence of text located to the left of fixation during each fixational pause using an eye-tracking paradigm in which invisible boundaries were created in sentence displays. Each boundary corresponded to the leftmost edge of each word so that, as each sentence was read, the normal letter content of text to the left of each fixated word was corrupted by letter replacements that were either visually similar or visually dissimilar to the originals. The proximity of corrupted text to the left of fixation was maintained at 1, 2, 3, or 4 words from the left boundary of each fixated word. In both experiments, relative to completely normal text, reading performance was impaired when each type of letter replacement was up to two words to the left of fixated words but letter replacements further from fixation produced no impairment. These findings suggest that key aspects of reading are influenced by information acquired during each fixational pause from much further leftwards than is usually assumed. Some of the implications of these findings for reading are discussed.Key Words: Reading, perceptual span, eye-movements Postview Effects in Reading 3 Normal reading relies on making saccadic eye-movements along lines of text and ending each movement with a brief fixational pause, during which time information is acquired (for a review, see Rayner, 2009). However, the area of text from which the information acquired at each fixational pause actually influences reading (the perceptual span) appears to be quite limited. In particular, assessments of the perceptual span are typically obtained using eye-tracking techniques in which areas of text extending leftwards or rightwards from each point of fixation are displayed normally during reading while text outside these areas is deliberately corrupted (e.g., by substituting different letters for the originals). Since these techniques were first introduced (McConkie & Rayner, 1975, 1976, it has become reported as standard that the findings show that skilled reading of languages read from left to right (such as English) is influenced by information from an asymmetric area that extends 14-15 characters to the right of fixation but no more than 3-4 characters to the left, and certainly no further leftwards than the beginning of each fixated word.Indeed, this standard view continues to be reported widely in the literature (e.g., Blythe, 2014;Rayner, 2014;Rayner, Yang, Schuett, & Slattery, 2014;Veldre & Andrews, 2014;Risse, Hohenstein, Kliegl & Engbert, 2014;Yan, Zhou, Shu, & Kliegl, 2015), ind...

show abstract

Reevaluating split-fovea processing in word recognition: Hemispheric dominance, retinal location, and the word-nonword effect

Cited by 13 publications

References 79 publications

Evaluating Effects of Divided Hemispheric Processing on Word Recognition in Foveal and Extrafoveal Displays: The Evidence from Arabic

Evaluating Effects of Divided Hemispheric Processing on Word Recognition in Foveal and Extrafoveal Displays: The Evidence from Arabic

An ERP Assessment of Hemispheric Projections in Foveal and Extrafoveal Word Recognition

A further look at postview effects in reading: An eye-movements study of influences from the left of fixation.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About