The information gathering framework - a cognitive model of regressive eye movements during reading

Abstract

In this article we present a new eye movement control framework that describes the interaction between fixation durations and regressive saccades during reading: The Information Gathering Framework (IGF).
 Based on the FC model proposed by Bicknell and Levy (2010), the basic idea of the IGF is that a confidence level for each word is computed while being monitored by three independent thresholds. These thresholds shape eye movement behavior by increasing fixation duration, triggering a regression, or guiding regression target selection. In this way, the IGF does not only account for regressive eye movements but also provides a framework able to model eye movement control during reading across different scenarios. Importantly, within the IGF it is assumed that two different types of regressive eye movements exist which differ with regard to their releases (integrations difficulties vs. missing evidence) but also with regard to their time course.
 We tested the predictions of the IGF by re-analyzing an experiment of Weiss et al. (2018) and found, inter alia, clear evidence for shorter fixation durations before regressive saccades relative to progressive saccades, with the exception of the last region. This clearly supports the assumptions of the IGF. In addition, we found evidence that there exists a window of about 15–20 characters to the left of the current fixation that plays an important role in target selection, probably indicating the perceptual span during a regressive saccade.

Conscious rereading is confirmatory: Evidence from bidirectional self-paced reading

“…. ) may lower the reader's confidence in their interpretation of the previous context (Bicknell & Levy, 2011;Weiss, 2020), resulting in a need to either confirm or revise the interpretation (e.g., Christianson, Luke, Hussey, & Wochna, 2017;Frazier & Rayner, 1982). If the reader's task is to judge a given sentence's syntactic and/or semantic well-formedness, regressions may serve to confirm an initial impression (Godfroid, Loewen, et al, 2015;Paape, Vasishth, & Engbert, 2021), resulting in higher judgment accuracy (Metzner, von der Malsburg, Vasishth, & Rösler, 2017).…”

Metacognitive monitoring and metacognitive strategies of gifted and average children on dealing with deductive reasoning task

“…This problem can be demonstrated in the following example: Bicknell and Levy ( 10 ) derived theoretically that certain reading strategy, namely the one in which participants make relatively short first pass fixations and at the same time exhibit an increased number of inter-word regressions, should lead to better learning outcomes in terms of comprehension accuracy. Such strategy can be easily grasped by means of eye-tracking and Weiss ( 80 ) reported a study which lends some empirical support to this model. However, this study was realized with adult participants (pre-graduate students) and thus it provides no information whether the same model holds for children and if not, what age represents the watershed after which one’s cognitive system works predominantly in an adult-like fashion.…”

“…In the second place, the negative findings might result from the particularities of our stimulus tasks. For instance, in the extant eye-tracking literature, the regression countin healthy subjects without cognitive impairments -is typically considered as a sign of more attentive reading or as an adaptation to a more complex and more demanding text to be read (Schotter et al, 2014;Weiss, 2020). However, the most influential models which attempt to explain the nature of inter-word regressions construe this increased difficulty primarily in terms of more complex syntactical-semantic structures in the text (for example, more regressions are likely to occur when reading sentences with many relative clauses, containing words with ambiguous meaning etc.…”

Conscious rereading is confirmatory: Evidence from bidirectional self-paced reading

“…The need for rereading can result from a failure to integrate the current word into the sentential context when it is highly unexpected or incongruous (e.g., Yan and Jaeger, 2020;Staub, 2011). When readers encounter an unexpected word (Since Jay always jogs a mile and a half seems …), this may lower their confidence in the current interpretation of the previous sentence context (Bicknell and Levy, 2011;Weiss, 2020;Levy, 2008;Levy et al, 2009), and they may launch a regression to either confirm or revise their current interpretation (e.g., Christianson et al, 2017;Frazier and Rayner, 1982). If the reader's task is to judge a given sentence's syntactic and/or semantic well-formedness, rereading may serve to confirm a first impression (Paape et al, 2021;Godfroid et al, 2015a), resulting in higher judgment accuracy compared to trials without rereading (Metzner et al, 2017).…”