A co-registration investigation of inter-word spacing and parafoveal preview: Eye movements and fixation-related potentials


Autoři: Federica Degno aff001;  Otto Loberg aff002;  Chuanli Zang aff001;  Manman Zhang aff003;  Nick Donnelly aff004;  Simon P. Liversedge aff001
Působiště autorů: School of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom aff001;  Department of Psychology, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland aff002;  Academy of Psychology and Behavior, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin, China aff003;  Department of Psychology, Liverpool Hope University, Liverpool, United Kingdom aff004
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(12)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225819

Souhrn

Participants’ eye movements (EMs) and EEG signal were simultaneously recorded to examine foveal and parafoveal processing during sentence reading. All the words in the sentence were manipulated for inter-word spacing (intact spaces vs. spaces replaced by a random letter) and parafoveal preview (identical preview vs. random letter string preview). We observed disruption for unspaced text and invalid preview conditions in both EMs and fixation-related potentials (FRPs). Unspaced and invalid preview conditions received longer reading times than spaced and valid preview conditions. In addition, the FRP data showed that unspaced previews disrupted reading in earlier time windows of analysis, compared to string preview conditions. Moreover, the effect of parafoveal preview was greater for spaced relative to unspaced conditions, in both EMs and FRPs. These findings replicate well-established preview effects, provide novel insight into the neural correlates of reading with and without inter-word spacing and suggest that spatial selection precedes lexical processing.

Klíčová slova:

Attention – Electroencephalography – Eye movements – Permutation – Scalp – Semantics – Sentence processing – Vision


Zdroje

1. Degno F, Loberg O, Zang C, Zhang M, Donnelly N, Liversedge SP. Parafoveal previews and lexical frequency in natural reading: Evidence from eye movements and fixation-related potentials. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2019 Mar;148(3):453–74. doi: 10.1037/xge0000494 30335444

2. Dimigen O, Sommer W, Hohlfeld A, Jacobs AM, Kliegl R. Coregistration of eye movements and EEG in natural reading: analyses and review. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2011 Nov;140(4):552–72. doi: 10.1037/a0023885 21744985

3. Henderson JM, Luke SG, Schmidt J, Richards JE. Co-registration of eye movements and event-related potentials in connected-text paragraph reading. Front Syst Neurosci. 2013 Jul 10;7:28. doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2013.00028 23847477

4. Kretzschmar F, Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I, Schlesewsky M. Parafoveal versus foveal N400s dissociate spreading activation from contextual fit. NeuroReport. 2009 Dec 9;20(18):1613–8. doi: 10.1097/WNR.0b013e328332c4f4 19884865

5. Kretzschmar F, Schlesewsky M, Staub A. Dissociating word frequency and predictability effects in reading: Evidence from coregistration of eye movements and EEG. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2015 Nov;41(6):1648–62. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000128 26010829

6. Loberg O, Hautala J, Hämäläinen JA, Leppänen PH. Semantic anomaly detection in school-aged children during natural sentence reading–A study of fixation-related brain potentials. PloS one. 2018 Dec 27;13(12):e0209741. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209741 30589889

7. Loberg O, Hautala J, Hämäläinen JA, Leppänen PH. Influence of reading skill and word length on fixation-related brain activity in school-aged children during natural reading. Vision Res. 2019 Dec 1;165:109–22. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2019.07.008 31710840

8. Metzner P, Von Der Malsburg T, Vasishth S, Rösler F. The importance of reading naturally: Evidence from combined recordings of eye movements and electric brain potentials. Cogn Sci. 2017 May;41:1232–63. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12384 27307404

9. Weiss B, Knakker B, Vidnyánszky Z. Visual processing during natural reading. Sci Rep. 2016 May 27;6:26902. doi: 10.1038/srep26902 27231193

10. Rayner K, Liversedge SP, White SJ. Eye movements when reading disappearing text: The importance of the word to the right of fixation. Vision Res. 2006 Feb 1;46(3):310–23. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2005.06.018 16085229

11. White SJ, Johnson RL, Liversedge SP, Rayner K. Eye movements when reading transposed text: The importance of word-beginning letters. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2008 Oct;34(5):1261. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.34.5.1261 18823209

12. Perea M, Acha J. Space information is important for reading. Vision Res. 2009 Jul 22;49(15):1994–2000. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2009.05.009 19463847

13. Rayner K, Fischer MH, Pollatsek A. Unspaced text interferes with both word identification and eye movement control. Vision Res. 1998 Apr 1;38(8):1129–44. doi: 10.1016/s0042-6989(97)00274-5 9666972

14. Rayner K, Pollatsek A. Reading unspaced text is not easy: Comments on the implications of Epelboim et al.’s (1994) study for models of eye movement control in reading. Vision Res. 1996 Feb 1;36(3):461–5. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(95)00132-8 8746235

15. Rayner K, Yang J, Schuett S, Slattery TJ. Eye movements of older and younger readers when reading unspaced text. Exp Psychol. 2013. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000207 23681016

16. Sheridan H, Rayner K, Reingold EM. Unsegmented text delays word identification: Evidence from a survival analysis of fixation durations. Vis Cogn. 2013 Jan 1;21(1):38–60. doi: 10.1080/13506285.2013.767296

17. Spragins AB, Lefton LA, Fisher DF. Eye movements while reading and searching spatially transformed text: A developmental examination. Mem Cognit. 1976 Jan 1;4(1):36–42. doi: 10.3758/BF03213252 21286956

18. Epelboim J, Booth JR, Ashkenazy R, Taleghani A, Steinman RM. Fillers and spaces in text: The importance of word recognition during reading. Vision Res. 1997 Oct 1;37(20):2899–914. doi: 10.1016/s0042-6989(97)00095-3 9415369

19. Epelboim J, Booth JR, Steinman RM. Reading unspaced text: Implications for theories of reading eye movements. Vision Res. 1994 Jul 1;34(13):1735–66. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(94)90130-9 7941379

20. Schotter ER, Angele B, Rayner K. Parafoveal processing in reading. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2012 Jan 1;74(1):5–35. doi: 10.3758/s13414-011-0219-2 22042596

21. Rayner K. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychol Bull. 1998 Nov;124(3):372–22. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372 9849112

22. Rayner K. Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Q J Exp Psychol. 2009 Aug 1;62(8):1457–506. doi: 10.1080/17470210902816461 19449261

23. Bouma H. Visual interference in the parafoveal recognition of initial and final letters of words. Vision Res. 1973 Apr 1;13(4):767–82. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(73)90041-2 4706350

24. McGowan VA, White SJ, Jordan TR, Paterson KB. Aging and the use of interword spaces during reading: Evidence from eye movements. Psychon Bull Rev. 2014 Jun 1;21(3):740–7. doi: 10.3758/s13423-013-0527-8 24101571

25. Townsend JT, Taylor SG, Brown DR. Lateral masking for letters with unlimited viewing time. Percept Psychophys. 1971 Sep 1;10(5):375–8. doi: 10.3758/BF03207464

26. McConkie GW, Rayner K. The span of the effective stimulus during a fixation in reading. Percept Psychophys. 1975 Nov 1;17(6):578–86.

27. Drieghe D, Fitzsimmons G, Liversedge SP. Parafoveal preview effects in reading unspaced text. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2017 Oct;43(10):1701–16. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000441 28967779

28. Veldre A, Drieghe D, Andrews S. Spelling ability selectively predicts the magnitude of disruption in unspaced text reading. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2017 Sep;43(9):1612–28. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000425 28414501

29. Sheridan H, Reichle ED, Reingold EM. Why does removing inter-word spaces produce reading deficits? The role of parafoveal processing. Psychon Bull Rev. 2016 Oct 1;23(5):1543–52. doi: 10.3758/s13423-015-0997-y 26801166

30. Rayner K. The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading. Cogn Psychol. 1975 Jan 1;7(1):65–81. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(75)90005-5

31. Inhoff AW. Integrating information across eye fixations in reading: The role of letter and word units. Acta Psychol. 1990 Apr 1;73(3):281–97.

32. Inhoff AW, Tousman S. Lexical integration across saccades in reading. Psychol Res. 1990 Dec 1;52(4):330–7. doi: 10.1007/bf00868065 2287696

33. Pollatsek A, Lesch M, Morris RK, Rayner K. Phonological codes are used in integrating information across saccades in word identification and reading. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1992 Feb;18(1):148. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.18.1.148 1532185

34. Vasilev MR, Angele B. Parafoveal preview effects from word N+ 1 and word N+ 2 during reading: A critical review and Bayesian meta-analysis. Psychon Bull Rev. 2017 Jun 1;24(3):666–89. doi: 10.3758/s13423-016-1147-x 27576520

35. McConkie GW, Underwood NR, Zola D, Wolverton GS. Some temporal characteristics of processing during reading. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1985 Apr;11(2):168–86. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.11.2.168 3159835

36. White S, Liversedge S. Orthographic familiarity influences initial eye fixation positions in reading. Eur J Cogn Psychol. 2004 Jan 1;16(1–2):52–78. doi: 10.1080/09541440340000204

37. Angele B, Slattery TJ, Yang J, Kliegl R, Rayner K. Parafoveal processing in reading: Manipulating n+ 1 and n+ 2 previews simultaneously. Vis cogn. 2008 Aug 1;16(6):697–707. doi: 10.1080/13506280802009704 19424452

38. Angele B, Tran R, Rayner K. Parafoveal–foveal overlap can facilitate ongoing word identification during reading: Evidence from eye movements. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2013 Apr;39(2):526–38. doi: 10.1037/a0029492 22866764

39. Niefind F, Dimigen O. Dissociating parafoveal preview benefit and parafovea-on-fovea effects during reading: A combined eye tracking and EEG study. Psychophysiology. 2016 Dec;53(12):1784–98. doi: 10.1111/psyp.12765 27680711

40. Dimigen O, Kliegl R, Sommer W. Trans-saccadic parafoveal preview benefits in fluent reading: A study with fixation-related brain potentials. Neuroimage. 2012 Aug 1;62(1):381–93. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.006 22521255

41. Kornrumpf B, Niefind F, Sommer W, Dimigen O. Neural correlates of word recognition: A systematic comparison of natural reading and rapid serial visual presentation. J Cogn Neurosci. 2016 Sep;28(9):1374–91. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00977 27167402

42. Li N, Niefind F, Wang S, Sommer W, Dimigen O. Parafoveal processing in reading Chinese sentences: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Psychophysiology. 2015 Oct;52(10):1361–74. doi: 10.1111/psyp.12502 26289548

43. Pollatsek A, Rayner K. Eye movement control in reading: The role of word boundaries. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1982 Dec;8(6):817. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.8.6.817

44. Oldfield RC. The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia. 1971 Mar 1;9(1):97–113. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4 5146491

45. Van Heuven WJ, Mandera P, Keuleers E, Brysbaert M. SUBTLEX-UK: A new and improved word frequency database for British English. Q J Exp Psychol. 2014 Jun 3;67(6):1176–90. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2013.850521 24417251

46. Balota DA, Yap MJ, Hutchison KA, Cortese MJ, Kessler B, Loftis B, Neely JH, Nelson DL, Simpson GB, Treiman R. The English lexicon project. Behav Res Methods. 2007 Aug 1;39(3):445–59. doi: 10.3758/bf03193014 17958156

47. Delorme A, Makeig S. EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. J Neurosci Methods. 2004 Mar 15;134(1):9–21. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009 15102499

48. Bell AJ, Sejnowski TJ. An information-maximization approach to blind separation and blind deconvolution. Neural Comput. 1995 Nov;7(6):1129–59. doi: 10.1162/neco.1995.7.6.1129 7584893

49. Plöchl M, Ossandón JP, König P. Combining EEG and eye tracking: identification, characterization, and correction of eye movement artifacts in electroencephalographic data. Front Hum Neurosci. 2012 Oct 9;6:278. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00278 23087632

50. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.5823. 2014 Jun 23. [51 p.] https://arxiv.org/abs/1406.5823

51. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 2019. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.

52. Barr DJ, Levy R, Scheepers C, Tily HJ. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. J Mem Lang. 2013 Apr 1;68(3):255–78. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 24403724

53. Venables WN, Ripley BD. Random and mixed effects. In Modern applied statistics with S 2002 (pp. 271–300). Springer, New York, NY.

54. Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RH. lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. J Stat Softw. 2017;82(13). doi: 10.18637/jss.v082.i13

55. Maris E, Oostenveld R. Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG-and MEG-data. J Neurosci Methods. 2007 Aug 15;164(1):177–90. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2007.03.024 17517438

56. Oostenveld R, Fries P, Maris E, Schoffelen JM. FieldTrip: open source software for advanced analysis of MEG, EEG, and invasive electrophysiological data. Comput Intell Neurosci. 2011 Jan 1;2011:1.

57. Groppe DM, Urbach TP, Kutas M. Mass univariate analysis of event-related brain potentials/fields I: A critical tutorial review. Psychophysiology. 2011 Dec;48(12):1711–25. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01273.x 21895683

58. Groppe DM, Urbach TP, Kutas M. Mass univariate analysis of event-related brain potentials/fields II: Simulation studies. Psychophysiology. 2011 Dec;48(12):1726–37. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01272.x 21895684

59. Angele B, Slattery TJ, Rayner K. Two stages of parafoveal processing during reading: Evidence from a display change detection task. Psychon Bull Rev. 2016 Aug 1;23(4):1241–9. doi: 10.3758/s13423-015-0995-0 26769246

60. Slattery TJ, Angele B, Rayner K. Eye movements and display change detection during reading. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2011 Dec;37(6):1924–38. doi: 10.1037/a0024322 21688934

61. Carreiras M, Armstrong BC, Perea M, Frost R. The what, when, where, and how of visual word recognition. Trends Cogn Sci. 2014 Feb 1;18(2):90–8. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.11.005 24373885

62. Grainger J, Holcomb PJ. Watching the word go by: On the time-course of component processes in visual word recognition. Lang Linguist Compass. 2009 Jan;3(1):128–56. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00121.x 19750025

63. Morris RK, Rayner K, Pollatsek A. Eye movement guidance in reading: The role of parafoveal letter and space information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 1990 May;16(2):268–81. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.16.2.268 2142198

64. Alday PM. How much baseline correction do we need in ERP research? Extended GLM model can replace baseline correction while lifting its limits. arXiv:1707.08152. [Preprint]. 2017 Jul 25. https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.08152


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 12