Oculomotor Control, Brain Potentials, and Timelines of Word Recognition During Natural Reading
Reading requires the orchestration of vision, attention, and language processes, usually along with the programming of eye movements. The co-registration of eye movements and electroencephalography (EEG) during natural reading promises to deliver two complementary sets of information. Fixation durations reflect the difficulty of sublexical, lexical, and sentence-level properties, such as the frequency and predictability of the fixated word and (at least) its left and right neighbors; they reveal space-related constraints of distributed processing in the perceptual span. Co-registered fixation-related potentials (FRPs) yield time-related constraints of word recognition within fixation durations. Effects of word frequency and predictability in FRPs are shown to be qualitatively similar to those in event-related potentials (ERPs) measured during serial visual presentation of sentence words. However, FRPs and ERPs differ with respect to the timelines associated with frequency and predictability effects. It is anticipated that space-related and time-related constraints of word recognition during reading will guide the further development of computational models of eye-movement control during reading as well as their integration with computational models of (isolated) word recognition.
KeywordsStimulus Onset Asynchrony Target Word Word Recognition Brain Potential Preview Benefit
This research was supported by DFG Research Unit 868, Project A2. Address for correspondence: Reinhold Kliegl, Department of Psychology, University of Potsdam, Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 24/24, 14476 Potsdam, Germany.
- Baccino, T. (2011). Eye movements and concurrent event-related potentials: Eye fixation-related potential investigations in reading. In: S.P. Liversedge, I.D. Gilchrist, & S. Everling (Eds.), Eye Movements Handbook (pp. 857–870). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Dambacher, M. (2010). Bottom-up and top-down processes in reading. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar
- Engbert, R., & Kliegl, R. (2011). Parallel graded attention models of reading. In: S.P. Liversedge, I.D. Gilchrist, & S. Everling (Eds.), Eye Movements Handbook (pp. 787–800). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Hohenstein, S., & Kliegl, R. (2012). Semantic preview benefit during reading. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
- Hohenstein, S., Laubrock, J., & Kliegl, R. (2010). Semantic preview benefit in eye movements during reading: A parafoveal fast-priming study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 1150–1170.Google Scholar
- Lee, C.-Y., Liu, Y.-N., & Tsai, J.-L. (2012). The time course of contextual effects on visual word recognition. Frontiers in Psychology. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00285.Google Scholar
- Rayner, K., Pollatsek, A., Drieghe, D., Slattery, T., & Reichle, E. D. (2007).Google Scholar
- Reichle, E. D. (2011). Serial-attention models in reading. In: S.P. Liversedge, I.D. Gilchrist, & S. Everling (Eds.), Eye Movements Handbook (pp. 767–786). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Taylor, W. L. (1953). Cloze procedure: A new tool for measuring readability. Journalism Quarterly, 30, 415–433.Google Scholar
- Van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C. M., Zwitserlood, P., Kooijman, V., & Hagoort, P. (2005). Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: Evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 443–467.Google Scholar