Abstract
A novel eye-movement-contingent method is presented. It builds on and extends established eye-movement-contingent visual display change methods in that it uses movements of the eyes to control the presentation of acoustic information during sentence reading. In one implementation, an irrelevant spoken word is presented when the eyes cross a predetermined spatial boundary before they move on to a selected visual target word. The relationship between the spoken word and the visual target is manipulated, and the pattern of interference, caused by the presentation of the spoken word, is used to determine the nature and time course of activated representations. Results from three recently completed experiments in which the technique was used show that a word’s phonological code remains active after it has been read and that the activated code has speech-like properties.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., &van Rjn, H. (1993).The Celex lexical database. (CD-ROM). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.
Birch, S., Pollatsek, A., &Kingston, J. (1998). The nature of the sound codes accessed by visual language.Journal of Memory & Language,38, 70–93.
Craemer, A., &Radach, R. (2002).Software for the control of eye movement experiments using EyeLink eye tracking systems (Technical Report). Aachen: Technical University of Aachen.
Frost, R. (1998). Toward a strong phonological theory of visual word recognition: True issues and false trials.Psychological Bulletin,123, 71–99.
Hochberg, J. (1976). Toward a speech-plan eye-movement model of reading. In R. A. Monty & J. W. Senders (Eds.),Eye movements and psychological processes (pp. 374–396). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Inhoff, A. W., &Radach, R. (1998). Definition and computation of oculomotor measures in the study of cognitive processes. In G. Underwood (Ed.),Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 29–54). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Inhoff, A.W., Radach, R., Eiter, B., & Juhasz, B. (in press). Parafoveal processing: Distinct subsystems for spatial and linguistic information.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.
Inhoff, A.W., Starr, M., Liu, W., &Wang, J. (1998). Eye-movement-contingent display changes are not compromised by flicker and phosphor persistence.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,5, 101–106.
Inhoff, A. W., & Weger, U. (in press). Advancing the methodological middle ground. In J. Hyönä, R. Radach, & H. Deubel (Eds.),The mind’s eye: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movements. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Just, M. A., &Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension.Psychological Review,87, 329–354.
Kennedy, A., Radach, R., Heller, D., &Pynte, J. (Eds.) (2000).Reading as a perceptual process. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
McConkie, G. W., &Rayner, K. (1975). The span of the effective stimulus during a fixation in reading.Perception & Psychophysics,17, 578–586.
McConkie, G. W., Wolverton, G. S., &Zola, D. (1984). Instrumentation considerations in research involving eye movement contingent stimulus control. In A. G. Gale & E Johnson (Eds.),Theoretical and applied aspects of eye movement research (pp. 39–47). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Patterson, D., &Connine, C. M. (2001). A corpus analysis of variant frequency in American English flap production.Phonetica,58, 254–275.
Radach, R., & Kennedy, A. (in press). Theoretical perspectives on eye movements in reading: Past controversies, current deficits and an agenda for future research.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology.
Rayner, K. (1975). The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading.Cognitive Psychology,7, 65–81.
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research.Psychological Bulletin,124, 372–422.
Reingold, E. M., &Stampe, D. M. (2000). Saccadic inhibition and gaze contingent research paradigms. In A. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller, & J. Pynte (Eds.),Reading as a perceptual process (p. 119–145). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Sereno, S. C., &Rayner, K. (1992). Fast priming during eye fixations in reading.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,18, 173–184.
Starr, M., &Fleming, K. (2001). A rose by any other name is not the same: The role of orthographic knowledge in homophone confusion errors.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 744–60.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by NSF Grant 0002024 and by the Center for Cognitive and Psycholinguistic Sciences at the State University of New York at Binghamton.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Inhoff, A.W., Connine, C. & Radach, R. A contingent speech technique in eye movement research on reading. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 34, 471–480 (2002). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195476
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195476