Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fixations in the visual world paradigm: where, when, why?

  • Review
  • Published:
Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Over the last 25 years, the visual world paradigm has enabled discoveries and theoretical advances in spoken language processing. However, the intuitive interpretation of fixations in the visual world paradigm—that fixations directly reflect over-time processes of activation and competition governing cognitive and language processing—deserves scrutiny. This paper provides a selective review of studies that suggest that the relations between fixations and ongoing processing are more complex than suggested by the intuitive interpretation. A particular challenge is explaining why context sometimes appears to have deep effects on language processing, while other times fixations appear to violate strong contextual constraints. I discuss implications of these seemingly contradictory patterns for theories of real-world language processing, and practical implications for using the visual world paradigm. Along the way, I review four possible linking hypotheses for connecting measures in the paradigm to theories of language and cognition. This review leads to the conclusion that implemented computational models will be needed to assess to what degree different linking hypotheses generate distinguishable predictions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A variant of the VWP was first reported by Cooper (1974), but this work went largely unnoticed. As of January 13, 2019, Cooper (1974) had been cited 389 times (not counting one citation that mysteriously predated Cooper's paper by 6 years; verified on scopus.com), but only 5 of those citations predate the independent development of the VWP by Tanenhaus et al. (1995) (which had 1245 citations as of January 13, 2019). The remainder of Cooper's citations follow a citation in Tanenhaus and Spivey-Knowlton (1996). Cooper presented the technique as one having great potential, but did not apply it to any theory-driven questions, and not even Cooper himself applied the technique in any later work. In their comprehensive review of the VWP, Huettig et al. (2011b) suggest that the impact of Cooper (1974) was minimal while that of Tanenhaus et al. (1995) was transformative partly because of the cumbersome and expensive nature of eye tracking in the 1970s, and partly due to theoretical debates that emerged in the 1980s to which Tanenhaus et al. applied the technique. The latter seems key (which raises interesting questions about the convergence of tools and theories), as does the rapid extension of the VWP by the Tanenhaus lab following their 1995 paper to theoretically-motivated questions in multiple domains of psycholinguistics.

  2. Neighborhood density was defined as the ratio of a target word's log frequency to the summed log frequencies of all words differing by no more than one phoneme; cohort density was defined as the ratio of a target word's log frequency to the summed log frequencies of all words overlapping in the first two phonemes with the target.

  3. I thank Michael Spivey for pointing out the implications of this preview time for saccade timing.

  4. However, attended scene details are less subject to change-blindness and more likely to be available in long-term memory after processing (e.g., Hollingworth and Henderson 2002), although susceptibility to change-blindness is also modulated by in-the-moment needs for perception and action (Ballard et al. 1997).

References

  • Allopenna, P. D., Magnuson, J. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models. Journal of Memory and Language,38, 419–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition,73, 247–264.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (2007). The real-time mediation of visual attention by language and world knowledge: Linking anticipatory (and other) eye movements to linguistic processing. Journal of Memory and Language,57, 502–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R. (1991). Is human cognition adaptive? Behavioral and Brain Sciences,14(3), 471–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballard, D. H. (1991). Animate vision. Artificial Intelligence,48, 57–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballard, D. H., Hayhoe, M. M., Pook, P. K., & Rao, R. P. (1997). Deictic codes for the embodiment of cognition. Behavioural and Brain Sciences,20(4), 723–742.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balota, D. A. (1990). The role of meaning in word recognition. In D. A. Balota, G. Flores D’Arcais, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 9–32). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, R. A. (1991). Intelligence without representation. Artificial Intelligence,47, 139–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown-Schmidt, S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2008). Real-time interpretation of referential domains in unscripted conversation: A targeted language game approach. Cognitive Science,32, 643–684. https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210802066816.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, C., & San Juan, V. (2008). Perception and presupposition in real-time language comprehension: Insights from anticipatory processing. Cognition,108, 26–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, C. G., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Magnuson, J. S. (2004). Actions and affordances in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition,30, 687–696.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, E. M., & Spivey, M. J. (2014). Timing of speech and display affects the linguistic mediation of visual search. Perception,43, 527–548.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Contini, E. W., Wardle, S. G., & Carlson, T. A. (2017). Decoding the time-course of object recognition in the human brain: From visual features to categorical decisions. Neuropsychologia,105, 165–176.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. M. (1974). The control of eye fixation by the meaning of spoken language: A new methodology for the real-time investigation of speech perception, memory, and language processing. Cognitive Psychology,6, 84–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cree, G. S., McRae, K., & McNorgan, C. (1999). An attractor model of lexical conceptual processing: Simulating semantic priming. Cognitive Science,23, 371–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahan, D., Magnuson, J. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2001a). Time course of frequency effects in spoken-word recognition: Evidence from eye movements. Cognitive Psychology,42, 317–367.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dahan, D., Magnuson, J. S., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Hogan, E. M. (2001b). Tracking the time course of subcategorical mismatches: Evidence for lexical competition. Language and Cognitive Processes,16(5/6), 507–534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahan, D., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2005). Looking at the rope when looking for the snake: Conceptually mediated eye movements during spoken-word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review,12, 453–459.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De Groot, F., Huettig, F., & Olivers, C. N. L. (2016). When meaning matters: The temporal dynamics of semantic influences on visual attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,42(2), 180–196. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dell’Acqua, R., & Grainger, J. (1999). Unconscious semantic priming from pictures. Cognition,73(1), B1–B15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Elman, J. L. (1990). Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science,14, 179–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elman, J. L. (2009). On the meaning of words and dinosaur bones: Lexical knowledge without a lexicon. Cognitive Science,33, 1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elman, J. L. (2011). Lexical knowledge without a lexicon? The Mental Lexicon,6(1), 1–33.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Frauenfelder, U. H., & Peeters, G. (1998). Simulating the time course of spoken word recognition: An analysis of lexical competition in TRACE. In J. Grainger & A. M. Jacobs (Eds.), Localist connectionist approaches to human cognition (pp. 101–146). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, E. J., & Pick, A. D. (2000). An ecological approach to perceptual learning and development. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greeno, J. G. (1994). Gibson’s affordances. Psychological Review,101(2), 336–342.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hanna, J. E., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Trueswell, J. C. (2003). Journal of Memory and Language,49, 43–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannagan, T., Magnuson, J. S., & Grainger, J. (2013). Spoken word recognition without a TRACE. Frontiers in Psychology,4, 563.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Harm, M. W., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1999). Phonology, reading acquisition, and dyslexia: Insights from connectionist models. Psychological Review,106(3), 491–528.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harm, M. W., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2004). Computing the meanings of words in reading: cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes. Psychological Review,111(3), 662–720.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hollingworth, A., & Henderson, J. M. (2002). Accurate visual memory for previously attended objects in natural scenes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,28(1), 113–136. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.28.1.113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huettig, F. (2015). Four central questions about prediction in language processing. Brain Research,1626, 118–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2015.02.014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Huettig, F., & Altmann, G. T. M. (2005). Word meaning and the control of eye fixation: semantic competitor effects and the visual world paradigm. Cognition,96(1), 23–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huettig, F., & McQueen, J. M. (2007). The tug of war between phonological, semantic and shape information in language-mediated visual search. Journal of Memory and Language,57(4), 460–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.02.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huettig, F., Olivers, C. N. L., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2011a). Looking, language, and memory: Bridging research from the visual world and visual search paradigms. Acta Psychologica,137, 138–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.07.013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Huettig, F., Rommers, J., & Meyer, A. S. (2011b). Using the visual world paradigm to study language processing: A review and critical evaluation. Acta Psychologica,137, 151–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.11.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking. Fast and Slow: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamide, Y., Altmann, G. T. M., & Haywood, S. (2003). The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language,49, 133–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keysar, B., Barr, D. J., & Horton, W. S. (1998). The egocentric basis of language use: Insights from a processing approach. Current Directions in Psychological Science,7, 46–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoeferle, P., & Crocker, M. W. (2006). The coordinated interplay of scene, utterance, and world knowledge: Evidence from eye tracking. Cognitive Science,30, 481–529.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Knoeferle, P., & Crocker, M. W. (2007). The influence of recent scene events on spoken comprehension: Evidence from eye-movements. Journal of Memory and Language,57, 519–543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kukona, A., Braze, D., Johns, C. L., Mencl, W. E., Van Dyke, J. A., Magnuson, J. S., et al. (2016). The real-time prediction and inhibition of linguistic outcomes: Effects of language and literacy skill. Acta Psychologica,171, 72–84.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kukona, A., Cho, P. W., Magnuson, J. S., & Tabor, W. (2014). Lexical interference effects in sentence processing: Evidence from the visual world paradigm and self-organizing models. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition,40(2), 326–347.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kukona, A., Fang, S., Aicher, K. A., Chen, H., & Magnuson, J. S. (2011). The time course of anticipatory constraint integration. Cognition,119, 23–42.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Li, M. Y. C., Braze, D., Kukona, A., Johns, C. L., Tabor, W., Van Dyke, J. A., et al. (2019). Individual differences in subphonemic sensitivity and phonological skills. Journal of Memory and Language,105, 195–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. D. (1959). Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review,101(4), 676–703.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Magnuson, J. S. (2008). Nondeterminism, pleiotropy, and single word reading: Theoretical and practical concerns. In E. Grigorenko & A. Naples (Eds.), single word reading (pp. 377–404). Mahweh, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnuson, J. S. (2017). Mapping spoken words to meaning. In G. Gaskell & J. Mirkovic (Eds.), Speech Perception and spoken word recognition (pp. 76–96). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnuson, J. S. (2019a). Schematic of the time course of priming. figshare. Figure. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.9465416.v1

  • Magnuson, J. (2019). Working memory visual world linking hypothesis (Version 2). figshare. Figure. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.8019518.v2

  • Magnuson, J. (2019c). Deep interaction visual world paradigm linking hypothesis (Version 1). figshare. Figure. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.8020184.v1

  • Magnuson, J. S. (in preparation). Comparative modeling of spoken word recognition.

  • Magnuson, J. S. (in preparation). Similar microstructure of spoken word recognition across computational architectures.

  • Magnuson, J. S., Dixon, J., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Aslin, R. N. (2007). The dynamics of lexical competition during spoken word recognition. Cognitive Science,31, 133–156.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Magnuson, J. S., Mirman, D., & Harris, H. D. (2012). Computational models of spoken word recognition. In M. Spivey, K. McRae, & M. Joanisse (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 76–103). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnuson, J. S., & Nusbaum, H. C. (2007). Acoustic differences, listener expectations, and the perceptual accommodation of talker variability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,33, 391–409.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Magnuson, J. S., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Aslin, R. N. (2008). Immediate effects of form-class constraints on spoken word recognition. Cognition,108(3), 866–873.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Magnuson, J. S., Tanenhaus, M. K., Aslin, R. N., & Dahan, D. (2003). The time course of spoken word recognition and learning: Studies with artificial lexicons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,132(2), 202–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mani, N., & Plunkett, K. (2010). In the infant's mind's ear: Evidence for implicit naming in 18-month-olds. Psychological Science,21, 908–913.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marslen-Wilson, W., & Zwitserlood, P. (1989). Accessing spoken words: The importance of word onsets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,15, 576–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClelland, J. L. (1979). On the time relations of mental processes: An examination of systems of processes in cascade. Psychological Review,86, 287–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology,18, 1–86.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 1. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review,88, 375–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMurray, B., Tanenhaus, M., & Aslin, R. (2002). Gradient effects of within-category phonetic variation on lexical access. Cognition,86(2), B33–B42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McQueen, J. M., & Huettig, F. (2014). Interference of spoken word recognition through phonological priming from visual objects and printed words. Attention, Perception and Psychophysics,76, 190–200. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-013-0560-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Seidenberg, M. S., & McNorgan, C. (2005). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavior Research Methods,37, 547–559.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McRae, K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on-line sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 283–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirman, D., & Magnuson, J. S. (2008). Attractor dynamics and semantic neighborhood density: Processing is slowed by near neighbors and speeded by distant neighbors. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition,34, 65–79.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Mirman, D., & Magnuson, J. S. (2009a). The effect of frequency of shared features on judgments of semantic similarity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,16(4), 671–677.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirman, D., & Magnuson, J. S. (2009b). Dynamics of activation of semantically similar concepts during spoken word recognition. Memory and Cognition,37, 1026–1039.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, R. K., Olivers, C. N. L., & Huettig, F. (2013). Spoken language and the decision to move the eyes: To what extent are language-mediated eye movements automatic? In V. S. C. Pammi & N. Srinivasan (Eds.), Progress in brain research: Decision making: Neural and behavioural approaches (pp. 135–149). New York: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic vs. analytic cognition. Psychological Review,108, 291–310.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Noizet, G., & Pynte, J. (1976). Implict labeling and rediness for pronunciation during the perceptual process. Perception,5, 217–223.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pirog Revill, K., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Aslin, R. N. (2008). Context and spoken word recognition in a novel lexicon. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition,34(5), 1207–1223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S., & Patterson, K. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological Review,103, 56–115.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reali, F., Spivey, M. J., Tyler, M. J., & Terranova, J. (2006). Inefficient conjunction search made efficient by concurrent spoken delivery of target identity. Perception and Psychophysics,68, 959–974.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rensink, R. A., O’Regan, J. K., & Clark, J. J. (1997). To see or not to see: The need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. Psychological Science,8(5), 368–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, D. C., & Spivey, M. J. (2000). Representation, space, and Hollywood Squares: Looking at things that aren’t there anymore. Cognition,76(3), 269–295.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Salverda, A. P., Dahan, D., & McQueen, J. M. (2003). The role of prosodic boundaries in the resolution of lexical embedding in speech comprehension. Cognition,90, 51–89.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sedivy, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., Chambers, C. G., & Carlson, G. N. (1999). Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation. Cognition,71, 109–147.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review,96, 523–568.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Spivey, M. J. (2007). The continuity of mind. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spivey, J. J., & Marian, V. (1999). Cross talk between native and second languages: Partial activation of an irrelevant lexicon. Psychological Science,10(3), 281–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spivey, M. J., Richardson, D. C., & Fitneva, S. A. (2004). Thinking outside the brain: Spatial indices to visual and linguistic information. In J. M. Henderson & F. Ferreira (Eds.), The interface of language, vision, and action: Eye movements and the visual world (pp. 161–189). New York, NY, US: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spivey, M. J., & Spevack, S. C. (2017). An inclusive account of mind across spatiotemporal scales of cognition. Journal of Cultural Cognition,1, 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41809-017-0002-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strand, J. F., Brown, V. A., Brown, H. E., & Berg, J. J. (2017). Keep listening: Grammatical context reduces but does not eliminate activation of unexpected words. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition,44(6), 962–973.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tabor, W., Galantucci, B., & Richardson, D. (2004). Effects of merely local syntactic coherence on sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language,50, 355–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.01.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabor, W., & Hutchins, S. (2004). Evidence for self-organized sentence processing: Digging in effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition,30, 431–450. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.2.431.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tanenhaus, M. K., Magnuson, J. S., Dahan, D., & Chambers, C. (2000). Eye movements and lexical access in spoken-language comprehension: Evaluating a linking hypothesis between fixations and linguistic processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,29, 557–580.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tanenhaus, M. K., & Spivey-Knowlton, M. J. (1996). Eye-tracking. Language and Cognitive Processes,11, 583–588.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science,268, 1632–1634.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Trueswell, J. C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1994). Toward a lexicalist framework for constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives in sentence processing (pp. 155–179). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turvey, M. (1973). On peripheral and central processes in vision: Inferences from an information-processing analysis of masking with patterned stimuli. Psychological Review,80, 1–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Venhuizen, N. J., Crocker, M. W., & Brouwer, H. (2019). Expectation-based comprehension: Modeling the interaction of world knowledge and linguistic experience. Discourse Processes,56(3), 229–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vivianni, P. (1990). Eye movements in visual search: Cognitive, perceptual, and motor control aspects. In E. Kowler (Ed.), Eye movements and their role in visual and cognitive processes. Reviews of oculomotor research V4 (pp. 353–383). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, E. S., & Magnuson, J. S. (accepted with minor revisions). Word length, proportion of overlap, and the time course of phonological competition in spoken word recognition: An empirical and computational investigation. Cognitive Science.

  • Yee, E., & Sedivy, J. (2001). Using eye movements to track the spread of semantic activation during spoken word recognition. Paper presented to the 13th annual CUNY sentence processing conference, Philadelphia.

  • Yee, E., & Sedivy, J. C. (2006). Eye movements to pictures reveal transient semantic activation during spoken word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition,32, 1–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • You, H., & Magnuson, J. S. (2018). TISK 1.0: An easy-to-use Python implementation of the time-invariant string kernel model of spoken word recognition. Behavior Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-1012-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zelinsky, G. J., & Murphy, G. L. (2000). Synchronizing visual and language processing: An effect of object name length on oculomotor behavior. Psychological Science, 11, 125–131.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper is based on a talk presented at the Attentive Listener in the Visual World meeting in Trondheim, Norway, in August, 2018. I am grateful to Falk Huettig, Mila Vulchanova, Valentin Vulchanov, Inge-Marie Eigsti, and Kenny Coventry for stimulating discussions that reshaped this paper. Preparation of this paper was supported in part by U.S. National Science Foundation Grants 1754284, Computational approaches to human spoken word recognition, and 1735225, Science of learning, from neurobiology to real-world application.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Psychological Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, 06269-1020, USA

    James S. Magnuson

Authors
  1. James S. Magnuson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James S. Magnuson.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Magnuson, J.S. Fixations in the visual world paradigm: where, when, why?. J Cult Cogn Sci 3, 113–139 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41809-019-00035-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41809-019-00035-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation