Semantic preview benefit in eye movements during reading: A parafoveal fast-priming study.

Hohenstein, Sven; Laubrock, Jochen; Kliegl, Reinhold

doi:10.1037/a0020233

Cited by 112 publications

(126 citation statements)

References 110 publications

(145 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

119

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In reading, there is some evidence corroborating this lack of semantic information being obtained from the parafovea, although there is disagreement between results in different languages. Most studies of alphabetic languages (such as English, Finnish, and Spanish) have not yielded evidence for semantic preview benefits (Altarriba, Kambe, Pollatsek, & Rayner, 2001;Hyönä & Häikiö, 2005;Rayner, Balota, & Pollatsek, 1986;White, Bertram, & Hyönä, 2008); however, such an effect has been reported for readers of German (Hohenstein, Laubrock, & Kliegl, 2010). Additionally, readers of character-based languages such as Chinese may obtain semantic information parafoveally Yan, Richter, Shu, & Kliegl, 2009;cf.…”

Section: Semantic Processingmentioning

confidence: 94%

Parafoveal processing in reading

Schotter

Angele

Rayner

2011

Atten Percept Psychophys

464

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

Section: Semantic Processingmentioning

confidence: 94%

Parafoveal processing in reading

Schotter

Angele

Rayner

2011

Atten Percept Psychophys

464

459

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies with Roman alphabet writing systems have generally provided no evidence for semantic processing (but see Hohenstein et al, 2010, for an exception) whereas studies with Chinese readers have (e.g., Yan et al, 2009, in press;Yang et al, in press). Since these two writing systems are vastly different in many aspects, it is difficult to identify the causes of contradictive findings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…More complex is the situation with respect to a similar attempt to demonstrate semantic preview effects in German. Hohenstein, Laubrock, and Kliegl (2010) used a combination of the boundary and fast priming paradigms, and showed that there was a semantic preview effect when the semantically related parafoveal word was available during the initial 125 ms of a fixation on the pretarget word. Their results suggest that, at least under favorable conditions, a parafoveal extraction of semantic information is also possible in alphabetic script.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Eye movements and parafoveal processing during reading in Korean

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Parafoveal word processing was examined during Korean reading. Twentyfour native speakers of Korean read sentences in two conditions while their eye movements were being monitored. The boundary paradigm (Rayner, 1975) was used to create a mismatch between characters displayed before and after an eye movement contingent display change. In the first condition, the critical previews were correct case markers in terms of syntactic category (e.g., object marker for an object noun) but with a phonologically incorrect form (e.g., using 를 instead of 을when the preceding noun ends with a consonant). In the second condition, incorrect case markers in terms of syntactic category were used, creating a semantic mismatch between preview and target. Results include a small but significant parafovea-on-fovea effect on the preceding fixation, combined with a large effect on late measures of target word reading when a syntactically incorrect preview was presented. These results indicate that skilled Korean readers are quite sensitive to high-level linguistic information available in the parafovea.

show abstract

“…Previous studies have suggested that both orthographic and phonological overlap between the mask and the target word can reduce the N + 1 preview effect and thus reduce target-word processing times (see Schotter et al, 2012). Similarly, semantic overlap has also been shown to result in such a benefit in word processing times in German Hohenstein, Laubrock, & Kliegl, 2010), but so far has been observed only under certain conditions in English (cf. Rayner, Schotter, & Drieghe, 2014;Schotter, Lee, Reiderman, & Rayner, 2015).…”

Section: Do N + 2 Preview Effects Exist?mentioning

confidence: 97%

Parafoveal preview effects from word N + 1 and word N + 2 during reading: A critical review and Bayesian meta-analysis

Vasilev

Angele

2016

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of gaze-contingent display techniques to study reading has shown that readers attend not only the currently fixated word, but also the word to the right of the current fixation. However, a critical look at the literature shows that a number of questions cannot be readily answered from the available literature reviews on the topic. First, there is no consensus as to whether readers also attend the second word to the right of fixation. Second, it is not clear whether parafoveal processing is more efficient in languages such as Chinese. Third, it is not well understood whether the measured effects are confounded by the properties of the parafoveal mask. In the present study, we addressed these issues by performing a Bayesian metaanalysis of 93 experiments that used the boundary paradigm (Rayner, Cognitive Psychology, 7, 65-81. doi:10.1016/0010-028590005-5, 1975. We describe three main findings: (1) The advantage of previewing the second word to the right is modest in size and likely is not centered on zero; (2) Chinese readers do seem to make more efficient use of parafoveal processing, but this is mostly evident in gaze durations; and (3) there are interference effects associated with using different parafoveal masks that roughly increase when the mask is less word-like.Keywords Parafoveal processing . Reading . Preview benefit . Perceptual span . Eye movementsThe advance of eye-tracking technology has allowed an unprecedented opportunity to understand how the reading process unfolds in space and time. One of the advantages of this method is the possibility to precisely manipulate what participants see in real time while they are reading sentences on the screen. The use of such techniques has shown that readers not only process the currently fixated word, but that they also benefit from previewing the upcoming word in parafoveal vision (Rayner, 1998). This so-called preview benefit effect is measured as shorter fixation durations on a word for which correct preview information was available during the preceding fixation.The preview benefit effect is arguably one of the most robust and least controversial findings in the literature, and it has inspired many subsequent experiments as well as models of reading (Schotter, Angele, & Rayner, 2012). A particular issue highlighted by the preview benefit effect is the distinction between gaze location and the attentional focus during reading. Although the gaze location and attentional focus are usually identical in single-word recognition tasks, readers appear to routinely attend the upcoming word as well. Many experiments have been dedicated to determining exactly which properties of an upcoming word readers can process while they are still fixating on the preceding word. It has been shown that reader can preprocess the orthographic, phonological, morphological, and possibly semantic properties of the upcoming word (for a review, see Schotter et al., 2012).However, despite four decades of research on the topic, the size of this effect has not been system...

show abstract

Semantic preview benefit in eye movements during reading: A parafoveal fast-priming study.

Cited by 112 publications

References 110 publications

Parafoveal processing in reading

Parafoveal processing in reading

Eye movements and parafoveal processing during reading in Korean

Parafoveal preview effects from word N + 1 and word N + 2 during reading: A critical review and Bayesian meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About