Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
- Postprint (1)
Language
- English (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2) (remove)
Keywords
- preview benefit (2) (remove)
Institute
Are individual differences in reading speed related to extrafoveal visual acuity and crowding?
(2015)
Readers differ considerably in their speed of self-paced reading. One factor known to influence fixation durations in reading is the preprocessing of words in parafoveal vision. Here we investigated whether individual differences in reading speed or the amount of information extracted from upcoming words (the preview benefit) can be explained by basic differences in extrafoveal vision-i.e., the ability to recognize peripheral letters with or without the presence of flanking letters. Forty participants were given an adaptive test to determine their eccentricity thresholds for the identification of letters presented either in isolation (extrafoveal acuity) or flanked by other letters (crowded letter recognition). In a separate eye-tracking experiment, the same participants read lists of words from left to right, while the preview of the upcoming words was manipulated with the gaze-contingent moving window technique. Relationships between dependent measures were analyzed on the observational level and with linear mixed models. We obtained highly reliable estimates both for extrafoveal letter identification (acuity and crowding) and measures of reading speed (overall reading speed, size of preview benefit). Reading speed was higher in participants with larger uncrowded windows. However, the strength of this relationship was moderate and it was only observed if other sources of variance in reading speed (e.g., the occurrence of regressive saccades) were eliminated. Moreover, the size of the preview benefit-an important factor in normal reading-was larger in participants with better extrafoveal acuity. Together, these results indicate a significant albeit moderate contribution of extrafoveal vision to individual differences in reading speed.
Cognitive psychology is traditionally interested in the interaction of perception, cognition, and behavioral control. Investigating eye movements in reading constitutes a field of research in which the processes and interactions of these subsystems can be studied in a well-defined environment. Thereby, the following questions are pursued: How much information is visually perceived during a fixation, how is processing achieved and temporally coordinated from visual letter encoding to final sentence comprehension, and how do such processes reflect on behavior such as the control of the eyes’ movements during reading. Various theoretical models have been proposed to account for the specific eye-movement behavior in reading (for a review see Reichle, Rayner, & Pollatsek, 2003). Some models are based on the idea of shifting attention serially from one word to the next within the sentence whereas others propose distributed attention allocating processing resources to more than one word at a time. As attention is assumed to drive word recognition processes one major difference between these models is that word processing must either occur in strict serial order, or that word processing is achieved in parallel. In spite of this crucial difference in the time course of word processing, both model classes perform well on explaining many of the benchmark effects in reading. In fact, there seems to be not much empirical evidence that challenges the models to a point at which their basic assumptions could be falsified. One issue often perceived as being decisive in the debate on serial and parallel word processing is how not-yet-fixated words to the right of fixation affect eye movements. Specifically, evidence is discussed as to what spatial extent such parafoveal words are previewed and how this influences current and subsequent word processing. Four experiments investigated parafoveal processing close to the spatial limits of the perceptual span. The present work aims to go beyond mere existence proofs of previewing words at such spatial distances. Introducing a manipulation that dissociates the sources of long-range preview effects, benefits and costs of parafoveal processing can be investigated in a single analysis and the differing impact is tracked across a three-word target region. In addition, the same manipulation evaluates the role of oculomotor error as the cause of non-local distributed effects. In this respect, the results contribute to a better understanding of the time course of word processing inside the perceptual span and attention allocation during reading.