@article{GhahghaeiLinnellFischeretal.2013,
  author    = {Ghahghaei, Saeideh and Linnell, Karina J. and Fischer, Martin H. and Dubey, Amit and Davis, Robert},
  title     = {Effects of load on the time course of attentional engagement, disengagement, and orienting in reading},
  series = {The quarterly journal of experimental psychology},
  volume    = {66},
  journal   = {The quarterly journal of experimental psychology},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hove},
  issn      = {1747-0218},
  doi       = {10.1080/17470218.2011.635795},
  pages     = {453 -- 470},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {We examined how the frequency of the fixated word influences the spatiotemporal distribution of covert attention during reading. Participants discriminated gaze-contingent probes that occurred with different spatial and temporal offsets from randomly chosen fixation points during reading. We found that attention was initially focused at fixation and that subsequent defocusing was slower when the fixated word was lower in frequency. Later in a fixation, attention oriented more towards the next saccadic target for high- than for low-frequency words. These results constitute the first report of the time course of the effect of load on attentional engagement and orienting in reading. They are discussed in the context of serial and parallel models of reading.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{EngelmannVasishthEngbertetal.2013,
  author    = {Engelmann, Felix and Vasishth, Shravan and Engbert, Ralf and Kliegl, Reinhold},
  title     = {A framework for modeling the interaction of syntactic processing and eye movement control},
  series = {Topics in cognitive science},
  volume    = {5},
  journal   = {Topics in cognitive science},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {1756-8757},
  doi       = {10.1111/tops.12026},
  pages     = {452 -- 474},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {We explore the interaction between oculomotor control and language comprehension on the sentence level using two well-tested computational accounts of parsing difficulty. Previous work (Boston, Hale, Vasishth, \& Kliegl, 2011) has shown that surprisal (Hale, 2001; Levy, 2008) and cue-based memory retrieval (Lewis \& Vasishth, 2005) are significant and complementary predictors of reading time in an eyetracking corpus. It remains an open question how the sentence processor interacts with oculomotor control. Using a simple linking hypothesis proposed in Reichle, Warren, and McConnell (2009), we integrated both measures with the eye movement model EMMA (Salvucci, 2001) inside the cognitive architecture ACT-R (Anderson et al., 2004). We built a reading model that could initiate short Time Out regressions (Mitchell, Shen, Green, \& Hodgson, 2008) that compensate for slow postlexical processing. This simple interaction enabled the model to predict the re-reading of words based on parsing difficulty. The model was evaluated in different configurations on the prediction of frequency effects on the Potsdam Sentence Corpus. The extension of EMMA with postlexical processing improved its predictions and reproduced re-reading rates and durations with a reasonable fit to the data. This demonstration, based on simple and independently motivated assumptions, serves as a foundational step toward a precise investigation of the interaction between high-level language processing and eye movement control.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{vonderMalsburgVasishth2013,
  author    = {von der Malsburg, Titus Raban and Vasishth, Shravan},
  title     = {Scanpaths reveal syntactic underspecification and reanalysis strategies},
  series = {Language and cognitive processes},
  volume    = {28},
  journal   = {Language and cognitive processes},
  number    = {10},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hove},
  issn      = {0169-0965},
  doi       = {10.1080/01690965.2012.728232},
  pages     = {1545 -- 1578},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {What theories best characterise the parsing processes triggered upon encountering ambiguity, and what effects do these processes have on eye movement patterns in reading? The present eye-tracking study, which investigated processing of attachment ambiguities of an adjunct in Spanish, suggests that readers sometimes underspecify attachment to save memory resources, consistent with the good-enough account of parsing. Our results confirm a surprising prediction of the good-enough account: high-capacity readers commit to an attachment decision more often than low-capacity participants, leading to more errors and a greater need to reanalyse in garden-path sentences. These results emerged only when we separated functionally different types of regressive eye movements using a scanpath analysis; conventional eye-tracking measures alone would have led to different conclusions. The scanpath analysis also showed that rereading was the dominant strategy for recovering from garden-pathing. Our results may also have broader implications for models of reading processes: reanalysis effects in eye movements occurred late, which suggests that the coupling of oculo-motor control and the parser may not be as tight as assumed in current computational models of eye movement control in reading.},
  language  = {en}
}