@article{SchotterLeinengervonderMalsburg2017,
  author    = {Schotter, Elizabeth Roye and Leinenger, Mallorie and von der Malsburg, Titus Raban},
  title     = {When your mind skips what your eyes fixate},
  series = {Psychonomic bulletin \& review : a journal of the Psychonomic Society},
  volume    = {25},
  journal   = {Psychonomic bulletin \& review : a journal of the Psychonomic Society},
  number    = {5},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {New York},
  issn      = {1069-9384},
  doi       = {10.3758/s13423-017-1356-y},
  pages     = {1884 -- 1890},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {The phenomenon of forced fixations suggests that readers sometimes fixate a word (due to oculomotor constraints) even though they intended to skip it (due to parafoveal cognitive-linguistic processing). We investigate whether this leads readers to look directly at a word but not pay attention to it. We used a gaze-contingent boundary paradigm to dissociate parafoveal and foveal information (e.g., the word phone changed to scarf once the reader's eyes moved to it) and asked questions about the sentence to determine which one the reader encoded. When the word was skipped or fixated only briefly (i.e., up to 100 ms) readers were more likely to report reading the parafoveal than the fixated word, suggesting that there are cases in which readers look directly at a word but their minds ignore it, leading to the illusion of reading something they did not fixate.},
  language  = {en}
}
@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}
}