@article{HohensteinKliegl2014,
  author    = {Hohenstein, Sven and Kliegl, Reinhold},
  title     = {Semantic preview benefit during reading},
  series = {Journal of experimental psychology : Learning, memory, and cognition},
  volume    = {40},
  journal   = {Journal of experimental psychology : Learning, memory, and cognition},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {American Psychological Association},
  address   = {Washington},
  issn      = {0278-7393},
  doi       = {10.1037/a0033670},
  pages     = {166 -- 190},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {Word features in parafoveal vision influence eye movements during reading. The question of whether readers extract semantic information from parafoveal words was studied in 3 experiments by using a gaze-contingent display change technique. Subjects read German sentences containing 1 of several preview words that were replaced by a target word during the saccade to the preview (boundary paradigm). In the 1st experiment the preview word was semantically related or unrelated to the target. Fixation durations on the target were shorter for semantically related than unrelated previews, consistent with a semantic preview benefit. In the 2nd experiment, half the sentences were presented following the rules of German spelling (i.e., previews and targets were printed with an initial capital letter), and the other half were presented completely in lowercase. A semantic preview benefit was obtained under both conditions. In the 3rd experiment, we introduced 2 further preview conditions, an identical word and a pronounceable nonword, while also manipulating the text contrast. Whereas the contrast had negligible effects, fixation durations on the target were reliably different for all 4 types of preview. Semantic preview benefits were greater for pretarget fixations closer to the boundary (large preview space) and, although not as consistently, for long pretarget fixation durations (long preview time). The results constrain theoretical proposals about eye movement control in reading.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{FernandezShalomKliegletal.2014,
  author    = {Fernandez, Gerardo and Shalom, Diego E. and Kliegl, Reinhold and Sigman, Mariano},
  title     = {Eye movements during reading proverbs and regular sentences: the incoming word predictability effect},
  series = {Language, cognition and neuroscience},
  volume    = {29},
  journal   = {Language, cognition and neuroscience},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group},
  address   = {Abingdon},
  issn      = {2327-3798},
  doi       = {10.1080/01690965.2012.760745},
  pages     = {260 -- 273},
  year      = {2014},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{RisseKliegl2014,
  author    = {Risse, Sarah and Kliegl, Reinhold},
  title     = {Dissociating preview validity and preview difficulty in parafoveal processing of word n+1 during reading},
  series = {Journal of experimental psychology : Human perception and performance},
  volume    = {40},
  journal   = {Journal of experimental psychology : Human perception and performance},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {American Psychological Association},
  address   = {Washington},
  issn      = {0096-1523},
  doi       = {10.1037/a0034997},
  pages     = {653 -- 668},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {Many studies have shown that previewing the next word n + 1 during reading leads to substantial processing benefit (e.g., shorter word viewing times) when this word is eventually fixated. However, evidence of such preprocessing in fixations on the preceding word n when in fact the information about the preview is acquired is far less consistent. A recent study suggested that such effects may be delayed into fixations on the next word n + 1 (Risse \& Kliegl, 2012). To investigate the time course of parafoveal information-acquisition on the control of eye movements during reading, we conducted 2 gaze-contingent display-change experiments and orthogonally manipulated the processing difficulty (i.e., word frequency) of an n + 1 preview word and its validity relative to the target word. Preview difficulty did not affect fixation durations on the pretarget word n but on the target word n + 1. In fact, the delayed preview-difficulty effect was almost of the same size as the preview benefit associated with the n + 1 preview validity. Based on additional results from quantile-regression analyses on the time course of the 2 preview effects, we discuss consequences as to the integration of foveal and parafoveal information and potential implications for computational models of eye guidance in reading.},
  language  = {en}
}