Abstract
Word frequency and orthographic familiarity were independently manipulated as readers' eye movements were recorded. Word frequency influenced fixation durations and the probability of word skipping when orthographic familiarity was controlled. These results indicate that lexical processing of words can influence saccade programming (as shown by fixation durations and which words are fixated). Orthographic familiarity, but not word frequency, influenced the duration of prior fixations. These results provide evidence for orthographic, but not lexical, parafoveal-on-foveal effects. Overall, the findings have a crucial implication for models of eye movement control in reading: There must be sufficient time for lexical factors to influence saccade programming before saccade metrics and timing are finalized. The conclusions are critical for the fundamental architecture of models of eye movement control in reading -- namely, how to reconcile long saccade programming times and complex linguistic influences on saccades during reading.
Highlights
Thirty students at the University of Durham, Durham, United Kingdom, participated in the experiment
The influence of orthographic familiarity and word frequency on saccade programming was assessed by examining fixation durations on, and the probability of skipping, the critical word
There was no effect of parafoveal word frequency on these fixation durations, the results indicate that prior fixation durations in this region were longer prior to orthographically unfamiliar compared with orthographically familiar infrequent words, t1(29) ϭ 2.22, p Ͻ .05; t2(38) ϭ 2.74, p Ͻ
Summary
Thirty students at the University of Durham, Durham, United Kingdom, participated in the experiment. They all had normal or corrected-to-normal vision and were naive regarding the purpose of the experiment. The critical words were (a) frequent and orthographically familiar, (b) infrequent and orthographically familiar, or (c) infrequent and orthographically unfamiliar. These three conditions were manipulated within participants and items. There were no differences in word frequency between the orthographically unfamiliar (M ϭ 1.5, SD ϭ 1.0) and familiar (M ϭ 1.7, SD ϭ 0.9) conditions (t Ͻ 1)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
