Abstract
The present study examined the relationship between the predictability of words within a sentence and the availability of parafoveal word length information, on when and where the eyes move in reading. Predictability influenced first-pass reading times when parafoveal word length preview information was correct, but not when it was incorrect. Similarly, for saccades launched from near the target word (word n), predictability influenced the probability with which it was skipped only when the word length preview was correct. By contrast, for saccades launched farther away from word n, predictability influenced word skipping regardless of the parafoveal word length preview. Taken together, the data suggest that parafoveal word length preview and predictability can act as a joint constraint on the decision of when and where to move the eyes.
Highlights
Much research has demonstrated that predictable words are read more quickly and are more likely to be skipped than unpredictable words (Balota, Pollatsek, & Rayner, 1985; Ehrlich & Rayner, 1981; Rayner & Well, 1996; for a review, see Brysbaert & Vitu, 1998)
Radach, Eiter, and Juhasz (2003) used the eye-contingent display change paradigm (Rayner, 1975) to investigate the influence of parafoveal orthography and word length information on preview benefit (Rayner, 1998), which is the reduction in reading time, given a correct versus an incorrect parafoveal preview
The results show that the type of eye-movement measure and the quality of the parafoveal preview determine whether predictability effects are modulated by parafoveal word length information
Summary
Participants Forty-four University of Massachusetts students with normal or corrected-to-normal vision participated in the experiment. When word length was specified, the participants produced predictable words more often (frequency: 82%; SD across items: 14%) than unpredictable words (frequency: 0%). When word length was unspecified, the participants produced predictable words more often (frequency: 55%; SD across items: 27%) than unpredictable words (frequency: 0.2%; SD across items: 1%). There were 48 sentence frames with 48 predictable and 48 unpredictable words. Word frequencies were calculated from Francis and Kucera (1982), with no differences in frequency between predictable (M ϭ 116, SD ϭ 124) and unpredictable (M ϭ 113, SD ϭ 107) conditions (t Ͻ 1). Thirteen percent of the trials were excluded due to (1) display changes happening too early, (2) tracker loss or blinks on first-pass reading of words n Ϫ 1, n, or n ϩ 1, and (3) zero reading times on the first part of the sentence
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
