|Abstract||A critical prediction of the E-Z Reader model is that experimental manipulations that disrupt early encoding of visual and orthographic features of the fixated word without affecting subsequent lexical processing should influence the processing difficulty of the fixated word without affecting the processing of the next word. We tested this prediction by monitoring participants’ eye movements while they read sentences in which a target word was presented either normally or altered. In the critical condition, the contrast between the target word and the background was substantially reduced. Such a reduction in stimulus quality is typically assumed to have an impact that is largely confined to a very early stage of word recognition. Results were consistent with the E-Z Reader model: This faint presentation had a robust influence on the duration of fixations on the target word without substantially altering the processing of the next word|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||No categories specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Eyal M. Reingold (2003). Eye-Movement Control in Reading: Models and Predictions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (4):500-501.
Sophie Dufour, Angèle Brunellière & Ulrich H. Frauenfelder (2013). Tracking the Time Course of Word‐Frequency Effects in Auditory Word Recognition With Event‐Related Potentials. Cognitive Science 37 (3):489-507.
M. Gareth Gaskell (2000). Modeling Lexical Effects on Phonetic Categorization and Semantic Effects on Word Recognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (3):329-330.
Lynn Huestegge, Jonathan Grainger & Ralph Radach (2003). Visual Word Recognition and Oculomotor Control in Reading. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (4):487-488.
Ralf Engbert & Reinhold Kliegl (2003). The Game of Word Skipping: Who Are the Competitors? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (4):481-482.
Yanping Liu, Erik D. Reichle & Ding-Guo Gao (2013). Using Reinforcement Learning to Examine Dynamic Attention Allocation During Reading. Cognitive Science 37 (4).
Janet H. Hsiao & Sze Man Lam (2013). The Modulation of Visual and Task Characteristics of a Writing System on Hemispheric Lateralization in Visual Word Recognition—A Computational Exploration. Cognitive Science 37 (4).
Alan Kennedy (2003). On Keeping Word Order Straight. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (4):490-491.
Jukka Hyönä & Raymond Bertram (2003). Future Challenges to E-Z Reader: Effects of OVP and Morphology on Processing Long and Short Compounds. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (4):488-489.
Stanka A. Fitneva & Morten H. Christiansen (2011). Looking in the Wrong Direction Correlates With More Accurate Word Learning. Cognitive Science 35 (2):367-380.
Kenneth N. Stevens (2000). Recognition of Continuous Speech Requires Top-Down Processing. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (3):348-348.
Sally Andrews (2003). E-Z Reader's Assumptions About Lexical Processing: Not so Easy to Define the Two Stages of Word Identification? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (4):477-478.
Richard Shillcock & Padraic Monaghan (1999). Bihemispheric Representation, Foveal Splitting, and Visual Word Recognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (2):300-301.
Erik D. Reichle, Keith Rayner & Alexander Pollatsek (2003). The E-Z Reader Model of Eye-Movement Control in Reading: Comparisons to Other Models. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (4):445-476.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads1 ( #277,212 of 556,837 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?