Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byLeslie Knight Modified over 9 years ago
1
26 ms 9 ms
2
Low High Predictability 7-9 Low High Predictability 4-6 Low High Predictability 1-3 Launch Distance from Target (# letters)
3
Low High Predictability 7-9 Low High Predictability 4-6 Low High Predictability 1-3 Launch Distance from Target (# letters)
4
Apparent additive effect of Freq & Pred in reading is comprised of opposing interactive effects. Possible explanations: –Frequency first –Floors and ceilings Launch site important Conclusions
5
Possible explanations Conclusions
6
Low High Predictability 7-9 Low High Predictability 4-6 Low High Predictability 1-3 Launch Distance from Target (# letters)
7
26 ms 9 ms
8
water …grabbed a bottle of water from a… 1-3 7-94-6 Launch Distance Target-1 fixation frequencyn.s.n.s.marg. predictabilityn.s.n.s.** Target fixation frequency predictability process current word(s) Identify fixation target form process current word(s) Identify fixation target meaning process current word(s) Identify fixation target meaning
11
Low High Predictability 7-9 Low High Predictability 4-6 Low High Predictability 1-3 Launch Distance from Target (# letters)
12
Low High Predictability 7-9 Low High Predictability 4-6 Low High Predictability 1-3 Launch Distance from Target (# letters)
13
Low High Predictability 7-9 Low High Predictability 4-6 Low High Predictability 1-3 Launch Distance from Target (# letters)
14
“Parafoveal-on-foveal” effects ( oh no! ): –When the ease or difficulty in processing a parafoveal target initially manifests itself on the current, pre-target fixation. Effects Before the Target? water …grabbed a bottle of water from a… location of current, pre-target fixation
15
4 ms (marg.) 6 ms (p<.01)
17
Parafoveal Processing Influences Word Frequency & Predictability Effects on Eye Movements during Reading Christopher Sébastien Patrick Sara Hand Miellet O’Donnell Sereno University of Glasgow (est. 1451) Glasgow Language Processing
18
Parafoveal Processing Influences Word Frequency & Predictability Effects on Eye Movements during Reading GULP G lasgow U niversity L anguage P rocessing University of Glasgow (est. 1451)
19
Parafoveal Processing Influences Word Frequency & Predictability Effects on Eye Movements during Reading Christopher Sébastien Patrick Sara Hand Miellet O’Donnell Sereno GULP Glasgow University Language Processing University of Glasgow (est. 1451)
20
Parafoveal Processing Influences Word Frequency & Predictability Effects on Eye Movements during Reading Christopher Sébastien Patrick Sara Hand Miellet O’Donnell Sereno University of Glasgow (est. 1451) Glasgow Language Processing
21
Method Participants: 64 –native English speaking; normal vision; not dyslexic –mean age = 22.2 (range: 18-41); #F=47, #M=17 Apparatus: Dual-Purkinje Eyetracker (Gen 5.5) Materials & Design: Conditions: Frequency (HF,LF) x Predictability (HP,LP) Targets: HF & LF targets matched pair-wise on word length (mean=5.84 letters; range: 5-8 letters) WOW!
22
Materials & Design Participants: 64 Apparatus: Dual-Purkinje Eyetracker (Gen 5.5.) Materials & Design: Conditions: Frequency (HF,LF) x Predictability (HP,LP) Targets: HF & LF targets matched pairwise on word length (5-8 letters; avg = xx) === HF === === LF === HP LP HP LP Frequency (BNC, per million) 145 145 4 4 Predictability (1-7) 6.19 4.07 6.11 3.69 Cloze probability 0.57 0.02 0.50 0.01
23
Freq X Pred: Eye Movements Altarriba, Kroll, Sholl, & Rayner (1996) Lavinge, Vitu, & d’Ydewalle (2000) Rayner, Binder, Ashby, & Pollatsek (2001) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Rayner, Ashby, Pollatsek, & Reichle (2004) Miellet, Sparrow, & Sereno (in press) Inhoff (1984) conducted en français
24
Freq X Pred: Eye Movements Altarriba, Kroll, Sholl, & Rayner (1996) Lavinge, Vitu, & d’Ydewalle (2000) Rayner, Binder, Ashby, & Pollatsek (2001) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Rayner, Ashby, Pollatsek, & Reichle (2004) Miellet, Sparrow, & Sereno (in press) Inhoff (1984) conducte d in French
25
High Low Predictable High Low Predictable High Low Predictable 7-9 4-61-3 Launch Distance from Target (# letters)
26
Rayner et al. (2004) Limitations Remedies Items per condition: 8 Length of context (# pre-target words): 7.7 words Target embedded in: single sentence 22 15.5 2 nd of 2 sentences
27
Freq X Pred: Eye Movements Altarriba, Kroll, Sholl, & Rayner (1996) Lavinge, Vitu, & d’Ydewalle (2000) Rayner, Binder, Ashby, & Pollatsek (2001) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Rayner, Ashby, Pollatsek, & Reichle (2004) Miellet, Sparrow, & Sereno (in press) Inhoff (1984)
28
Method Participants: 64 (mean age = 22; #F=47) Apparatus: Dual-Purkinje Eyetracker (Gen 5.5) Materials & Design: Frequency (HF,LF) x Predictability (HP,LP) HF & LF targets matched pair-wise on word length (mean = 5.84 letters; range: 5-8 letters) WOW! HF LF HP LP HP LP Frequency (BNC, per million) 145 145 4 4 Predictability (1-7) 6.19 4.07 6.11 3.69 Cloze probability 0.57 0.02 0.50 0.01
29
Method Materials & Design: Frequency (HF,LF) x Predictability (HP,LP) HF & LF targets matched pair-wise on word length (mean = 5.84 letters; range: 5-8 letters) HF LF HP LP HP LP Frequency (BNC, per million) 145 145 4 4 Predictability (1-7) 6.19 4.07 6.11 3.69 Cloze probability.57.02.50.01 # of items 22 22 22 22
30
Method Materials & Design: Frequency (HF,LF) x Predictability (HP,LP) HF & LF targets matched pair-wise on word length (mean = 5.84 letters; range: 5-8 letters) HF LF HP LP HP LP Frequency (BNC, per million) 145 145 4 4 Predictability (1-7) 6.19 4.07 6.11 3.69 Cloze probability.57.02.50.01 # of items 22 22 22 22
31
Results: Fixation Time Measures Early –First fixation duration (FFD) –Single fixation duration (SFD) –Gaze duration (GD) –Probability of skipping (skip) = [1 – prob(fixation)] Later –Next forward-going fixation (next) –Total Fixation Time (TT) –# regressions into target, # regressions out of target 1 fix 2+ fixskipreject 63% 12%21% 4%
32
Parafoveal Pre-processing In reading, words are processed parafoveally Before they are foveated. Reading involves foveal processing and Parafoveal processing before the
33
time TIMETIME
34
In fact, the EM condition most resembling RT presentation (i.e., no parafoveal preview), only shows a frequency effect in early measures. However, different patterns emerge when fixation time is McConkie’s N ?
35
Low High Predictability 7-9 Low High Predictability 4-6 Low High Predictability 1-3 Launch Distance from Target (# letters)
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.