Advertisement

Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 135–138 | Cite as

Eye movements and identifying words in parafoveal vision

  • Keith Rayner
  • Robert E. Morrison
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Subjects either named or made lexical decisions about words presented in parafoveal vision. In one condition, subjects were required to maintain fixation, and in another condition, they were allowed to make eye movements. In the no eye movement condition, performance decreased as the stimulus was presented further from fixation. Words could be identified more quickly when eye movements were made than when they were not. The experiments also indicated that holding fixation takes up a certain amount of processing capacity, so that foveally presented targets are identified more quickly when eye movements are allowed than when they are not.

Keywords

Lexical Decision Visual Angle Vision Research Lexical Decision Task Naming Task 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Download to read the full article text

References

  1. Andriessen, J. J., & Bouma, H. Eccentric vision: Adverse interaction between line segments. Vision Research, 1976, 16, 71–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bouma, H. Visual interference in the parafoveal recognition of initial and final letters of words. Vision Research, 1973, 13, 767–782.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bouma, H. Visual search and reading: Eye movements and functional visual field. In J. Requin (Ed.), Attention and performance VII. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum, 1978.Google Scholar
  4. Hilz, R., & Cavonius, C. R. Functional organization of the peripheral retina: Sensitivity to periodic stimuli. Vision Research, 1974, 14, 1333–1337.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hines, M. Line spread function variation near the fovea. Vision Research, 1976, 16, 567–572.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Koenderink, J. J., Bouman, M. A., Bueno de Mesquita, A. E., & Slappendel, S. Perimetry of contrast detection thresholds of moving spatial sine wave patterns. 1. The near peripheral visual field (eccentricity 0°-8°). Journal of the Optical Society of America, 1978, 68, 845–849.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Limb, J. O., & Rubenstein, C. B. A model of threshold vision incorporating inhomogeneity of the visual field. Vision Research, 1977, 17, 571–584.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Mackworth, N. H. Visual noise causes tunnel vision. Psychonomic Science, 1965, 3, 67–68.Google Scholar
  9. Millodot, M. Foveal and extra-foveal acuity with and without stabilized retinal images. British Journal of Physiological Optics, 1966, 23, 75–106.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Rayner, K. Eye movement latencies for parafoveally presented words. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1978, 11, 13–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rayner, K., & McConkie, G. W. What guides a reader’s eye movements? Vision Research, 1976, 16, 829–837.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rayner, K., McConkie, G. W., & Ehrlich, S. Eye movements and integrating information across fixations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1978, 4, 529–544.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sanders, A. F. The selective process in the functional visual field. Soesterberg, The Netherlands: Institute for Perception, RVO-TNO, 1963.Google Scholar
  14. Schiepers, C. Response latency and accuracy in visual word recognition. Perception & Psychophysics, 1980, 27, 71–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keith Rayner
    • 1
  • Robert E. Morrison
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of MassachusettsAmherst

Personalised recommendations