Perception & Psychophysics

, Volume 63, Issue 5, pp 875–890 | Cite as

Semantic codes are not used in integrating information across eye fixations in reading: Evidence from fluent Spanish-English bilinguals

  • Jeanette Altarriba
  • Gretchen Kambe
  • Alexander Pollatsek
  • Keith Rayner


The question of whether meaning can be extracted from unidentified parafoveal words was examined using fluent Spanish-English bilinguals. In Experiment 1, subjects fixated on a central cross, and a preview word was presented to the right of fixation in parafoveal vision. During the saccade to the parafoveal preview word, the preview was replaced by the target word, which the subject was required to name. In Experiment 2, subjects read sentences containing the target word, and, as in the naming task, a preview word was replaced by the target word when the subject’s saccade crossed a boundary location. In both experiments, preview words were identical to the target word, translations, orthographic controls for the translations, or unrelated words in the opposite language. In both experiments, the preview benefit from the translation conditions was no greater than would be predicted by the orthographic similarity of the preview to the target. Hence, the data indicated that subjects obtained no useful semantic information from words seen parafoveally that enabled them to identify them more quickly on the subsequent fixation.


  1. Altarriba, J., Kroll, J. F., Sholl, A., &Rayner, K. (1996). The influence of lexical and conceptual constraints on reading mixedlanguage sentences: Evidence from eye fixations and naming times.Memory & Cognition,24, 477–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altarriba, J., &Mathis, K.M. (1997). Conceptual and lexical development in second language acquisition.Journal of Memory & Language,36, 550–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altarriba, J., &Soltano, E. G. (1996). Repetition blindness and bilingual memory: Token individuation for translation equivalents.Memory & Cognition,24, 700–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balota, D. A. (1983). Automatic semantic activation and episodic memory encoding.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,22, 88–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balota, D. A., Pollatsek, A., &Rayner, K. (1985). The interaction of contextual constraints and parafoveal visual information in reading.Cognitive Psychology,17, 364–390.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Balota, D. A., &Rayner, K. (1983). Parafoveal visual information and semantic contextual constraints.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,9, 726–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Binder, K. S., Pollatsek, A., &Rayner, K. (1999). Extraction of information to the left of the fixated word in reading.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,25, 1162–1172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bowers, J. S. (1999). Priming is not all bias: Commentary on Ratcliff and McKoon (1997).Psychological Review,106, 582–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, T. L., Roos-Glibert, L., &Carr, T. H. (1995). Automaticity and word perception: Evidence from Stroop and Stroop dilution effects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 1395–1411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caramazza, A., &Brones, I. (1980). Semantic classifcation by bilinguals.Canadian Journal of Psychology,34, 77–81.Google Scholar
  11. Carr, T. H., McCauley, C., Sperber, R. D., &Parmelee, C. M. (1982). Words, pictures and priming: On semantic activation and the automaticity of information processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,8, 757–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cristoffanini, P., Kirsner, K., &Milech, D. (1986). Bilingual lexical representation: The status of Spanish-English cognates.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,38A, 367–393.Google Scholar
  13. de Groot, A. M. B., &Nas, G. L. (1991). Lexical representation of cognates and noncognates in compound bilinguals.Journal of Memory & Language,30, 90–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Di Pace, E., Longoni, A. M., &Zoccolotti, P. (1991). Semantic processing of unattended parafoveal words.Acta Psychologica,77, 21–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ehrlich, S. F., &Rayner, K. (1981). Contextual effects on word perception and eye movements during reading.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,20, 641–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fuentes, L. J., &Tudela, P. (1992). Semantic processing of foveally and parafoveally presented words in a lexical decision task.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,45A, 299–322.Google Scholar
  17. Gerhand, S. J., Deregowski, J. B., &McAllister, H. (1995). Stroop phenomenon as a measure of cognitive functioning of bilingual (Gaelic/English) subjects.British Journal of Psychology,86, 89–92.Google Scholar
  18. Henderson, J. M., Dixon, P., Petersen, A., Twilley, L. C., &Ferreira, F. (1995). Evidence for the use of phonological representations during transsaccadic word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,21, 82–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Henderson, J.M., &Ferreira, F. (1990). Effects of foveal processing difficulty on the perceptual span in reading: Implications for attention and eye movement control.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 417–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Henderson, J.M., &Ferreira, F. (1993). Eye movement control during reading: Fixation measures reflect foveal but not parafoveal processing difficulty.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,47, 201–221.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Inhoff, A. W. (1982). Parafoveal word perception: A further case against semantic preprocessing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,8, 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Inhoff, A. W. (1989). Lexical access during eye fixations in reading: Are word codes used to integrate lexical information across interword fixations?Journal of Memory & Language,28, 444–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Inhoff, A.W., Briihl, D., &Schwartz, J. (1996). Compound word effects differ in reading, on-line naming, and delayed naming tasks.Memory & Cognition,24, 466–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Inhoff, A. W., &Rayner, K. (1980). Parafoveal word perception: A case against semantic preprocessing.Perception & Psychophysics,27, 457–464.Google Scholar
  25. Inhoff, A.W., Starr, M., &Shindler, K. L. (2000). Is the processing of words during eye fixations in reading strictly serial?Perception & Psychophysics,62, 1474–1484.Google Scholar
  26. Jordan, T. R., Patching, G. R., &Milner, D. A. (1998). Central fixations are inadequately controlled by instructions alone: Implications for studying cerebral asymmetries.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,51A, 371–391.Google Scholar
  27. Kennedy, A. (1998). The influence of parafoveal words on foveal inspection time: Evidence for a processing tradeoff. In G. Underwood (Ed.),Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 149–180). New York: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kennedy, A. (2000). Parafoveal processing in word recognition.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,53A, 429–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kennison, S. M., &Clifton, C. (1995). Determinants of parafoveal preview benefit in high and low span working memory capacity readers: Implications for eye movement control.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 68–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lambert, A. J., &Sumich, A. L. (1996). Spatial orienting controlled without awareness: A semantically based implicit learning effect.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,49A, 490–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lee, H.-W., Rayner, K., &Pollatsek, A. (1999). The time course of phonological, semantic, and orthographic coding in reading: Evidence from the fast-priming technique.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,6, 624–634.Google Scholar
  32. Lima, S. D. (1987). Morphological analysis in sentence reading.Journal of Memory & Language,26, 84–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marcel, A. J. (1983). Conscious and unconscious perceptions: Experiments on visual masking.Cognitive Psychology,15, 197–237.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McConkie, G. W., &Rayner, K. (1975). The span of the effective stimulus during a fixation in reading.Perception & Psychophysics,17, 578–586.Google Scholar
  36. McConkie, G.W., &Zola, D. (1979). Is visual information integrated across successive fixations in reading?Perception & Psychophysics,25, 221–224.Google Scholar
  37. Monsell, S. (1991). The nature and locus of word frequency effects in reading. In D. Besner & G. W. Humphreys (Eds.),Basic processes in reading (pp. 148–197). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  38. Neely, J. H. (1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. In D. Besner & G. W. Humphreys (Eds.),Basic processes in reading (pp. 264–336). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. O’Regan, [J.] K. (1979). Saccade size control in reading: Evidence for the linguistic control hypothesis.Perception & Psychophysics,25, 501–509.Google Scholar
  40. O’Regan, J. K. (1980). The control of saccade size and fixation duration in reading: The limits of linguistic control.Perception & Psychophysics,28, 112–117.Google Scholar
  41. Paap, K. R., &Newsome, S. L. (1981). Parafoveal information is not sufficient to produce semantic or visual priming.Perception & Psychophysics,29, 457–466.Google Scholar
  42. Patching, G. R., &Jordan, T. R. (1998). Increasing the benefits of eye-tracking devices in divided visual field studies of cerebral asymmetry.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,30, 643–650.Google Scholar
  43. Perea, M., &Pollatsek, A. (1998). The effects of neighborhood frequency in reading and lexical decision.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,24, 767–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pollatsek, A., Lesch, M., Morris, R. K., &Rayner, K. (1992). Phonological codes are used in integrating information across saccades in word identification and reading.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,18, 148–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pollatsek, A., Perea, M., &Binder, K. S. (1999). The effects of neighborhood size in reading and lexical decision.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,25, 1142–1158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pollatsek, A., Tan, L.-H., &Rayner, K. (2000). The role of phonological codes in integrating information across saccadic eye movements in Chinese character identification.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,26, 607–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rayner, K. (1975). The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading.Cognitive Psychology,7, 65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rayner, K. (1978). Foveal and parafoveal cues in reading. In J. Requin (Ed.),Attention and performance VII (pp. 149–162). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  49. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research.Psychological Bulletin,124, 372–422.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rayner, K., Balota, D. A., &Pollatsek, A. (1986). Against parafoveal semantic preprocessing during eye fixations in reading.Canadian Journal of Psychology,40, 473–483.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Rayner, K., Fischer, M. H., &Pollatsek, A. (1998). Unspaced text interferes with both word identification and eye movement control.Vision Research,38, 1129–1144.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rayner, K., McConkie, G. W., &Ehrlich, S. F. (1978). Eye movements and integrating information across fixations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,4, 529–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rayner, K., McConkie, G.W., &Zola, D. (1980). Integrating information across eye movements.Cognitive Psychology,12, 206–226.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rayner, K., &Pollatsek, A. (1989).The psychology of reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  55. Rayner, K., &Well, A. D. (1996). Effects of contextual constraint on eye movements in reading: A further examination.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,3, 504–509.Google Scholar
  56. Rayner, K., Well, A. D., Pollatsek, A., &Bertera, J. H. (1982).Perception & Psychophysics,31, 537–550.Google Scholar
  57. Reichle, E. D., Pollatsek, A., Fisher, D. L., &Rayner, K. (1998). Towards a model of eye movement control in reading.Psychological Review,105, 125–157.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schroyens, W., Vitu, F., Brysbaert, M., &d’Ydewalle, G. (1999). Eye movement control during reading: Foveal load and parafoveal processing.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,52A, 1021–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schustack, M. W., Ehrlich, S. F., &Rayner, K. (1987). The complexity of contextual facilitation in reading: Local and global influences.Journal of Memory & Language,26, 322–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sereno, S. C. (1995). The resolution of lexical ambiguity: Evidence from an eye movement priming paradigm.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 285–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sereno, S. C., &Rayner, K. (1992). Fast priming during eye fixations in reading.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,18, 173–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sereno, S. C., &Rayner, K. (2000). Spelling-sound regularity effects on eye fixations in reading.Perception & Psychophysics,62, 402–409.Google Scholar
  63. Stanners, R. F., Neiser, J. J., Hernon, W. P., &Hall, R. (1979). Memory representation for morphologically related words.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,18, 733–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Thomas, M. S. C., &Allport, A. (2000). Language switching costs in bilingual word recognition.Journal of Memory & Language,43, 44–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tzelgov, J., Henik, A., &Leiser, D. (1990). Controlling Stroop in terference: Evidence from a bilingual task.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 760–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Underwood, G. (1985). Eye movements during the comprehension of written language. In A. W. Ellis (Ed.),Progress in the psychology of language (Vol. 2, pp. 45–71). London: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  67. Vitu, F. (1991). The influence of parafoveal preprocessing and linguistic context on the optimal landing position effect.Perception & Psychophysics,50, 58–75.Google Scholar
  68. Zola, D. (1984). Redundancy and word perception during reading.Perception & Psychophysics,36, 277–284.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeanette Altarriba
    • 2
  • Gretchen Kambe
    • 1
  • Alexander Pollatsek
    • 1
  • Keith Rayner
    • 1
  1. 1.University at AlbanyState University of New YorkAlbany
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of MassachusettsAmherst

Personalised recommendations