Serial processing is consistent with the time course of linguistic information extraction from consecutive words during eye fixations in reading: A response to Inhoff, Eiter, and Radach (2005).

A. W. Inhoff, B. M. Eiter, and R. Radach (see record 2005-13471-012) reported the results of 2 experiments that they claimed were problematic for serial attention models of eye movements in reading (such as the E-Z Reader model). In this reply, the authors demonstrate via argumentation and simulations that their data pose no serious problem for the E-Z Reader model or serial attention models in general. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Attention to one word at a time in reading is still a viable hypothesis: Rejoinder to Inhoff, Radach, and Eiter (2006).

A. W. Inhoff, R. Radach, and B. Eiter (see record 2006-22004-015) argue that the current version of the E-Z Reader model (A. Pollatsek, E. D. Reichle, & K. Rayner, see record 2006-22004-014) cannot explain 2 key findings in their data, and as a result, the assumption of words being attended to 1 at a time is likely to be false. In this rejoinder, the authors argue that the E-Z Reader model can easily explain the 1st of the 2 phenomena and that the 2nd phenomenon is likely to be at least partially an artifact of changing displays during fixations. The authors also argue that their assumptions about attention shifting are not contrary to the attention literature and that the assumption that A. W. Inhoff et al. deem to be unrealistic (i.e., instantaneous shifting of attention) is easily modified within the architecture of the model. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Time Course of Linguistic Information Extraction From Consecutive Words During Eye Fixations in Reading.

Sequential attention shift models of reading predict that an attended (typically fixated) word must be recognized before useful linguistic information can be obtained from the following (parafoveal) word. These models also predict that linguistic information is obtained from a parafoveal word immediately prior to a saccade toward it. To test these assumptions, sentences were constructed with a critical pretarget-target word sequence, and the temporal availability of the (parafoveal) target preview was manipulated while the pretarget word was fixated. Target viewing effects, examined as a function of prior target visibility, revealed that extraction of linguistic target information began 70-140 ms after the onset of pretarget viewing. Critically, acquisition of useful linguistic information from a target was not confined to the ending period of pretarget viewing. These results favor theoretical conceptions in which there is some temporal overlap in the linguistic processing of a fixated and parafoveally visible word during reading. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Toward a perceptual-span theory of distributed processing in reading: A reply to Rayner, Pollatsek, Drieghe, Slattery, and Reichle (2007).

K. Rayner, A. Pollatsek, D. Drieghe, T. J. Slattery, and E. D. Reichle (see record 2007-11669-010) argued that the R. Kliegl, A. Nuthmann, and R. Engbert (see record 2006-01956-002) corpus-analytic evidence for distributed processing during reading should not be accepted because (a) there might be problems of multicollinearity, (b) the distinction between content and function words and the skipping status of neighboring words was ignored, and (c) there are inconsistencies with experimental results. Reanalyses with linear mixed-effect models demonstrate that (a) regression coefficients are stable across 9 samples, (b) lexical status and skipping status (and their interactions) are highly significant but do not account for the effects of word frequency for content and for function words, and (c) there is strong evidence for lexical processing of content words while fixating function words to the left of them. A critical result about fixation durations prior to skipped words is replicated in an experiment. The distinction between correlational analyses and well-controlled experiments and questions about generalizability of results are discussed. The author argues for a complementary role of corpus analysis, computational modeling, and experiments in reading research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Phonological typicality influences sentence processing in predictive contexts: Reply to Staub, Grant, Clifton, and Rayner (2009).

In 2 separate self-paced reading experiments, Farmer, Christiansen, and Monaghan (2006) found that the degree to which a word's phonology is typical of other words in its lexical category influences online processing of nouns and verbs in predictive contexts. Staub, Grant, Clifton, and Rayner (2009) failed to find an effect of phonological typicality when they combined stimuli from the separate experiments into a single experiment. We replicated Staub et al.'s experiment and found that the combination of stimulus sets affects the predictiveness of the syntactic context; this reduces the phonological typicality effect as the experiment proceeds, although the phonological typicality effect was still evident early in the experiment. Although an ambiguous context may diminish sensitivity to the probabilistic relationship between the sound of a word and its lexical category, phonological typicality does influence online sentence processing during normal reading when the syntactic context is predictive of the lexical category of upcoming words. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Tracking the mind during reading: The influence of past, present, and future words on fixation durations.

Reading requires the orchestration of visual, attentional, language-related, and oculomotor processing constraints. This study replicates previous effects of frequency, predictability, and length of fixated words on fixation durations in natural reading and demonstrates new effects of these variables related to 144 sentences. Such evidence for distributed processing of words across fixation durations challenges psycholinguistic immediacy-of-processing and eye-mind assumptions. Most of the time the mind processes several words in parallel at different perceptual and cognitive levels. Eye movements can help to unravel these processes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Parafoveal processing of word n + 2 during reading: Do the preceding words matter?

We used the boundary paradigm (Rayner, 1975) to test two hypotheses that might explain why no conclusive evidence has been found for the existence of n + 2 preprocessing effects. In Experiment 1, we tested whether parafoveal processing of the second word to the right of fixation (n + 2) takes place only when the preceding word (n + 1) is very short (Angele, Slattery, Yang, Kliegl, & Rayner, 2008); word n + 1 was always a three-letter word. Before crossing the boundary, preview for both words n + 1 and n + 2 was either incorrect or correct. In a third condition, only the preview for word n + 1 was incorrect. In Experiment 2, we tested whether word frequency of the preboundary word (n) had an influence on the presence of preview benefit and parafoveal-on-foveal effects. Additionally, Experiment 2 contained a condition in which only preview of n + 2 was incorrect. Our findings suggest that effects of parafoveal n + 2 preprocessing are not modulated by either n + 1 word length or n frequency. Furthermore, we did not observe any evidence of parafoveal lexical preprocessing of word n + 2 in either experiment. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Previewing the neighborhood: The role of orthographic neighbors as parafoveal previews in reading.

In 2 experiments, a boundary technique was used with parafoveal previews that were identical to a target (e.g., sleet), a word orthographic neighbor (sweet), or an orthographically matched nonword (speet). In Experiment 1, low-frequency words in orthographic pairs were targets, and high-frequency words were previews. In Experiment 2, the roles were reversed. In Experiment 1, neighbor words provided as much preview benefit as identical words and greater benefit than nonwords, whereas in Experiment 2, neighbor words provided no greater preview benefit than nonwords. These results indicate that the frequency of a preview influences the extraction of letter information without setting up appreciable competition between previews and targets. This is consistent with a model of word recognition in which early stages largely depend on excitation of letter information, and competition between lexical candidates becomes important only in later stages. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Still no phonological typicality effect on word reading time (and no good explanation of one, either): A rejoinder to Farmer, Monaghan, Misyak, and Christiansen.

In this brief rejoinder, we respond to Farmer, Monaghan, Misyak, and Christiansen (2011). We argue that the data still do not support the claim that reading time is affected by the phonological typicality of a word for its part of speech. We also question Farmer et al.'s claim that interleaving syntactic structures in an experiment modifies grammatically based syntactic expectations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

"Inhibition of Return: Sensitivity and Criterion as a Function of Response Time": Correction to Ivanoff and Klein (2006).

Reports an error in the original article, "Inhibition of Return: Sensitivity and Criterion as a Function of Response Time" by Jason Ivanoff and Raymond M. Klein (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2006 Aug, Vol 32[4], 908-919). On page 912, there are typographical errors in Table 1. On page 915, the last line of the left column incorrectly states that the mean response frequencies for Experiment 2 are presented within Table 2. The corrected information for both pages is presented here. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2006-09006-009.) Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to a mechanism that results in a performance disadvantage typically observed when targets are presented at a location once occupied by a cue. Although the time course of the phenomenon--from the cue to the target--has been well studied, the time course of the effect--from target to response--is unknown. In 2 experiments, the effect of IOR upon sensitivity and response criterion under different levels of speed stress was examined. In go/no-go and choice reaction time tasks, IOR had at least 2 distinct effects on information processing. Early in target processing, before sufficient target information has accrued, there is a bias against responding to cued targets. Later, as target information is allowed to accrue, IOR reduces sensitivity to the target's nonspatial feature. Three accounts relating to the early bias effect of IOR and the late effect of IOR on sensitivity are offered. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Additivity of factor effects in reading tasks is still a challenge for computational models: Reply to Ziegler, Perry, and Zorzi (2009).

J. C. Ziegler, C. Perry, and M. Zorzi (2009) have claimed that their connectionist dual process model (CDP+) can simulate the data reported by S. O'Malley and D. Besner. Most centrally, they have claimed that the model simulates additive effects of stimulus quality and word frequency on the time to read aloud when words and nonwords are randomly intermixed. This work represents an important attempt given that computational models of reading processes have to date largely ignored the issue of whether it is possible to simulate additive effects. Despite CDP+'s success at capturing many other phenomena, it is clear that CDP+ fails to capture the full pattern seen with skilled readers in these experiments. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Qualitative differences between the joint effects of stimulus quality and word frequency in reading aloud and lexical decision: Extensions to Yap and Balota (2007).

There have been multiple reports over the last 3 decades that stimulus quality and word frequency have additive effects on the time to make a lexical decision. However, it is surprising that there is only 1 published report to date that has investigated the joint effects of these two factors in the context of reading aloud, and the outcome of that study is ambiguous. The present study shows that these factors interact in the context of reading aloud and at the same time replicate the standard pattern reported for lexical decision. The main implication of these results is that lexical activation, at least as indexed by the effect of word frequency, does not unfold in a uniform way in the contexts reported here. The observed dissociation also implies, contrary to J. A. Fodor's (1983) view, that the mental lexicon is penetrable rather than encapsulated. The distinction between cascaded and thresholded processing offers one way to understand these and related results. A direction for further research is briefly noted. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Assessing the importance of letter pairs in reading-parafoveal processing is not the only view: Reply to Inhoff, Radach, Eiter, and Skelly (2003).

D. Briihl and A. W. Inhoff (1995; see record 1995-20036-001) found that exterior letter pairs showed no privileged status in reading when letter pairs were presented as parafoveal primes. However, T. R. Jordan, S. M. Thomas, G. R. Patching, and K. C. Scott-Brown (2003; see record 2003-07955-013) used a paradigm that (a) allowed letter pairs to exert influence at any point in the reading process, (b) overcame problems with the stimulus manipulations used by Briihl and Inhoff (1995), and (c) revealed a privileged status for exterior letter pairs in reading. A. W. Inhoff, R. Radach, B. M. Eiter, and M. Skelly (2003; see record 2003-07955-014) made a number of claims about the Jordan, Thomas, et al. study, most of which focus on parafoveal processing. This article addresses these claims and points out that although studies that use parafoveal previews provide an important contribution, other techniques and paradigms are required to reveal the full role of letter pairs in reading. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

An attentional learning account of the shape bias: Reply to Cimpian and Markman (2005) and Booth, Waxman, and Huang (2005).

Recently, Developmental Psychology published 2 articles on the shape bias; both rejected the authors' previous proposals about the role of attentional learning in the development of a shape bias in object name learning. A. Cimpian and E. Markman (2005; see record 2005-14938-017) did so by arguing that the shape bias does not exist but is an experimental artifact. A. E. Booth, S. R. Waxman, and Y. T. Huang (2005; see record 2005-05098-004), in contrast, concluded that the shape bias (and its contextual link to artifact categories) does exist but that the mechanisms that underlie it are conceptual knowledge and not attentional learning. In response, in this article the authors clarify the claims of the Attentional Learning Account (ALA) and interpretations of the data under question. The authors also seek to make explicit the deeper theoretical divide: cognition as sequestered from processes of perceiving and acting versus as embedded in, and inseparable from, those very processes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)