@article{SchottervonderMalsburgLeinenger2019,
  author    = {Schotter, Elizabeth Roye and von der Malsburg, Titus Raban and Leinenger, Mallorie},
  title     = {Forced Fixations, Trans-Saccadic Integration, and Word Recognition},
  series = {Journal of experimental psychology : Learning, memory, and cognition},
  volume    = {45},
  journal   = {Journal of experimental psychology : Learning, memory, and cognition},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {American Psychological Association},
  address   = {Washington},
  issn      = {0278-7393},
  doi       = {10.1037/xlm0000617},
  pages     = {677 -- 688},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Recent studies using the gaze-contingent boundary paradigm reported a reversed preview benefit- shorter fixations on a target word when an unrelated preview was easier to process than the fixated target (Schotter \& Leinenger, 2016). This is explained viaforeedfixatiotzs-short fixations on words that would ideally be skipped (because lexical processing has progressed enough) but could not be because saccade planning reached a point of no return. This contrasts with accounts of preview effects via trans-saccadic integration-shorter fixations on a target word when the preview is more similar to it (see Cutter. Drieghe, \& Liversedge, 2015). In addition, if the previewed word-not the fixated target-determines subsequent eye movements, is it also this word that enters the linguistic processing stream? We tested these accounts by having 24 subjects read 150 sentences in the boundary paradigm in which both the preview and target were initially plausible but later one, both, or neither became implausible, providing an opportunity to probe which one was linguistically encoded. In an intervening buffer region, both words were plausible, providing an opportunity to investigate trans-saccadic integration. The frequency of the previewed word affected progressive saccades (i.e.. forced fixations) as well as when transsaccadic integration failure increased regressions, but, only the implausibility of the target word affected semantic encoding. These data support a hybrid account of saccadic control (Reingold, Reichle. Glaholt, \& Sheridan, 2012) driven by incomplete (often parafoveal) word recognition, which occurs prior to complete (often foveal) word recognition.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{SchuettRothkegelTrukenbrodetal.2019,
  author    = {Sch{\"u}tt, Heiko Herbert and Rothkegel, Lars Oliver Martin and Trukenbrod, Hans Arne and Engbert, Ralf and Wichmann, Felix A.},
  title     = {Disentangling bottom-up versus top-down and low-level versus high-level influences on eye movements over time},
  series = {Journal of vision},
  volume    = {19},
  journal   = {Journal of vision},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Association for Research in Vision and Opthalmology},
  address   = {Rockville},
  issn      = {1534-7362},
  doi       = {10.1167/19.3.1},
  pages     = {23},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Bottom-up and top-down as well as low-level and high-level factors influence where we fixate when viewing natural scenes. However, the importance of each of these factors and how they interact remains a matter of debate. Here, we disentangle these factors by analyzing their influence over time. For this purpose, we develop a saliency model that is based on the internal representation of a recent early spatial vision model to measure the low-level, bottom-up factor. To measure the influence of high-level, bottom-up features, we use a recent deep neural network-based saliency model. To account for top-down influences, we evaluate the models on two large data sets with different tasks: first, a memorization task and, second, a search task. Our results lend support to a separation of visual scene exploration into three phases: the first saccade, an initial guided exploration characterized by a gradual broadening of the fixation density, and a steady state that is reached after roughly 10 fixations. Saccade-target selection during the initial exploration and in the steady state is related to similar areas of interest, which are better predicted when including high-level features. In the search data set, fixation locations are determined predominantly by top-down processes. In contrast, the first fixation follows a different fixation density and contains a strong central fixation bias. Nonetheless, first fixations are guided strongly by image properties, and as early as 200 ms after image onset, fixations are better predicted by high-level information. We conclude that any low-level, bottom-up factors are mainly limited to the generation of the first saccade. All saccades are better explained when high-level features are considered, and later, this high-level, bottom-up control can be overruled by top-down influences.},
  language  = {en}
}