Using E-Z Reader to simulate eye movements in nonreading tasks: A unified framework for understanding the eye–mind link.

Reichle, Erik D.; Pollatsek, Alexander; Rayner, Keith

doi:10.1037/a0026473

Cited by 131 publications

(179 citation statements)

References 165 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

168

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1C). This temporal relation between foveal analysis and peripheral selection is a core assumption of models of eye movement control in reading (14,(19)(20)(21) and other visual-motor domains (22,23). Finally, Fig.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Foveal analysis and peripheral selection during active visual sampling

Ludwig

Davies

Eckstein

2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human vision is an active process in which information is sampled during brief periods of stable fixation in between gaze shifts. Foveal analysis serves to identify the currently fixated object and has to be coordinated with a peripheral selection process of the next fixation location. Models of visual search and scene perception typically focus on the latter, without considering foveal processing requirements. We developed a dual-task noise classification technique that enables identification of the information uptake for foveal analysis and peripheral selection within a single fixation. Human observers had to use foveal vision to extract visual feature information (orientation) from different locations for a psychophysical comparison. The selection of to-be-fixated locations was guided by a different feature (luminance contrast). We inserted noise in both visual features and identified the uptake of information by looking at correlations between the noise at different points in time and behavior. Our data show that foveal analysis and peripheral selection proceeded completely in parallel. Peripheral processing stopped some time before the onset of an eye movement, but foveal analysis continued during this period. Variations in the difficulty of foveal processing did not influence the uptake of peripheral information and the efficacy of peripheral selection, suggesting that foveal analysis and peripheral selection operated independently. These results provide important theoretical constraints on how to model target selection in conjunction with foveal object identification: in parallel and independently.A lmost all human visually guided behavior relies on the selective uptake of information, due to sensory and cognitive limitations. On the sensory side, the sampling of visual input by the retinal mosaic of photoreceptors becomes increasingly sparse and irregular away from central vision (1). In addition, fewer cortical neurons are devoted to the analysis of peripheral visual information (cortical magnification) (2, 3). Humans and other animals with so-called foveated visual systems have evolved gazeshifting mechanisms to overcome these limitations. Saccadic eye movements serve to rapidly and efficiently deploy gaze to objects and regions of interest in the visual field. Sampling the environment appropriately with gaze is the starting point of adaptive visual-motor behavior (4, 5).Studies have shown that saccadic eye movements are guided by analysis of information in the visual periphery up to 80-100 ms before saccade execution (6-8). However, active vision typically requires humans not only also to analyze information in the visual periphery to decide where to fixate next (peripheral selection), but also to analyze the information at the current fixation location (foveal analysis). Not much is known about how foveal analysis and peripheral selection are coordinated and interact. In this regard, we need to know (i) whether and to what extent foveal analysis and peripheral selection are constrained by a common bo...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Foveal analysis and peripheral selection during active visual sampling

Ludwig

Davies

Eckstein

2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Word frequency Over the past three decades, the study of eye movement control during reading has been the focus of extensive empirical and theoretical efforts (for reviews, see Rayner, 1998Rayner, , 2009 Feng, 2006). These models incorporate various assumptions and generate unique predictions that have inspired empirical tests.Of particular relevance to the present study, Reingold and Rayner (2006) tested the central assumption of the influential E-Z Reader model (Reichle, 2011;Reichle et al, 1998;Reichle, Pollatsek, & Rayner, 2012) that word identification reflects two separate stages of lexical processing. Specifically, the E-Z Reader model assumes that the initiation of the programming of a saccade to the next word (word n + 1 ) occurs prior to the completion of lexical access to the fixated word (word n ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of particular relevance to the present study, Reingold and Rayner (2006) tested the central assumption of the influential E-Z Reader model (Reichle, 2011;Reichle et al, 1998;Reichle, Pollatsek, & Rayner, 2012) that word identification reflects two separate stages of lexical processing. Specifically, the E-Z Reader model assumes that the initiation of the programming of a saccade to the next word (word n + 1 ) occurs prior to the completion of lexical access to the fixated word (word n ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A further examination of the lexical-processing stages hypothesized by the E-Z Reader model

Sheridan

Reingold

2013

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Participants' eye movements were monitored while they read sentences in which high-and lowfrequency target words were presented normally (i.e., the normal condition) or with either reduced stimulus quality (i.e., the faint condition) or alternating lower-and uppercase letters (i.e., the case-alternated condition). Both the stimulus quality and case alternation manipulations interacted with word frequency for the gaze duration measure, such that the magnitude of word frequency effects was increased relative to the normal condition. However, stimulus quality (but not case alternation) interacted with word frequency for the early fixation time measures (i.e., first fixation, single fixation), whereas case alternation (but not stimulus quality) interacted with word frequency for the later fixation time measures (i.e., total time, go-past time). We interpret this pattern of results as evidence that stimulus quality influences an earlier stage of lexical processing than does case alternation, and we discuss the implications of our results for models of eye movement control during reading.Keywords Reading . Eye movements . Case alternation . Stimulus quality . Lexical processing . Word frequency Over the past three decades, the study of eye movement control during reading has been the focus of extensive empirical and theoretical efforts (for reviews, see Rayner, 1998Rayner, , 2009 Feng, 2006). These models incorporate various assumptions and generate unique predictions that have inspired empirical tests.Of particular relevance to the present study, Reingold and Rayner (2006) tested the central assumption of the influential E-Z Reader model (Reichle, 2011;Reichle et al., 1998;Reichle, Pollatsek, & Rayner, 2012) that word identification reflects two separate stages of lexical processing. Specifically, the E-Z Reader model assumes that the initiation of the programming of a saccade to the next word (word n + 1 ) occurs prior to the completion of lexical access to the fixated word (word n ). Saccadic programming is postulated to be driven by the output of an early lexicalprocessing stage (L 1 ), which indicates that lexical access to word n is imminent. Lexical processing of word n is then completed during a subsequent stage of lexical processing (L 2 ), and the conclusion of this stage causes covert attention to shift to word n + 1 . During the interval of time between this attention shift and the launch of the word n -to-word n + 1 saccade, parafoveal processing of word n + 1 is initiated. The duration of this interval, referred to as the parafoveal preview, is expected to determine the magnitude of any processing benefit when word n + 1 is later fixated (with longer preview resulting in shorter fixations on word n + 1 ). Importantly, as was argued by Reingold (2003), the E-Z Reader model predicts that experimental manipulations that disrupt L 1 but not L 2 should influence the processing difficulty of word n without affecting the processing of word n + 1 , whereas manipulations that impact L 2 should impact wor...

show abstract

“…For each simulation we used the default model parameters (as provided by Reichle, Pollatsek, & Rayner, 2012) and predicted data for 10,000 statistical subjects reading the sentences in all four conditions. Simulation 1.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Skipping Syntactically Illegal "The" Previews-The Role of Predictability

Abbott¹,

Angele²,

Ahn³

et al. 2014

PsycEXTRA Dataset

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Readers tend to skip words, particularly when they are short, frequent, or predictable. Angele and Rayner (2013) recently reported that readers are often unable to detect syntactic anomalies in parafoveal vision. In the present study, we manipulated target word predictability to assess whether contextual constraint modulates the-skipping behavior. The results provide further evidence that readers frequently skip the article the when infelicitous in context. Readers skipped predictable words more often than unpredictable words, even when the, which was syntactically illegal and unpredictable from the prior context, was presented as a parafoveal preview. The results of the experiment were simulated using E-Z Reader 10 by assuming that cloze probability can be dissociated from parafoveal visual input. It appears that when a short word is predictable in context, a decision to skip it can be made even if the information available parafoveally conflicts both visually and syntactically with those predictions.

show abstract

Using E-Z Reader to simulate eye movements in nonreading tasks: A unified framework for understanding the eye–mind link.

Cited by 131 publications

References 165 publications

Foveal analysis and peripheral selection during active visual sampling

Foveal analysis and peripheral selection during active visual sampling

A further examination of the lexical-processing stages hypothesized by the E-Z Reader model

Skipping Syntactically Illegal "The" Previews-The Role of Predictability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About