Parafoveal Processing of Word n + 2 During Reading: Do the Preceding Words Matter?
Authors: Angele, B. and Rayner, K.
Journal: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
Volume: 37
Issue: 4
Pages: 1210-1220
ISSN: 0096-1523
DOI: 10.1037/a0023096
Abstract:We used the boundary paradigm (Rayner, 1975) to test two hypotheses that might explain why no conclusive evidence has been found for the existence of n + 2 preprocessing effects. In Experiment 1, we tested whether parafoveal processing of the second word to the right of fixation (n + 2) takes place only when the preceding word (n + 1) is very short (Angele, Slattery, Yang, Kliegl, & Rayner, 2008); word n + 1 was always a three-letter word. Before crossing the boundary, preview for both words n + 1 and n + 2 was either incorrect or correct. In a third condition, only the preview for word n + 1 was incorrect. In Experiment 2, we tested whether word frequency of the preboundary word (n) had an influence on the presence of preview benefit and parafoveal-on-foveal effects. Additionally, Experiment 2 contained a condition in which only preview of n + 2 was incorrect. Our findings suggest that effects of parafoveal n + 2 preprocessing are not modulated by either n + 1 word length or n frequency. Furthermore, we did not observe any evidence of parafoveal lexical preprocessing of word n + 2 in either experiment. © 2011 American Psychological Association.
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/39481/
Source: Scopus
Parafoveal processing of word n + 2 during reading: do the preceding words matter?
Authors: Angele, B. and Rayner, K.
Journal: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform
Volume: 37
Issue: 4
Pages: 1210-1220
eISSN: 1939-1277
DOI: 10.1037/a0023096
Abstract:We used the boundary paradigm (Rayner, 1975) to test two hypotheses that might explain why no conclusive evidence has been found for the existence of n + 2 preprocessing effects. In Experiment 1, we tested whether parafoveal processing of the second word to the right of fixation (n + 2) takes place only when the preceding word (n + 1) is very short (Angele, Slattery, Yang, Kliegl, & Rayner, 2008); word n + 1 was always a three-letter word. Before crossing the boundary, preview for both words n + 1 and n + 2 was either incorrect or correct. In a third condition, only the preview for word n + 1 was incorrect. In Experiment 2, we tested whether word frequency of the preboundary word (n) had an influence on the presence of preview benefit and parafoveal-on-foveal effects. Additionally, Experiment 2 contained a condition in which only preview of n + 2 was incorrect. Our findings suggest that effects of parafoveal n + 2 preprocessing are not modulated by either n + 1 word length or n frequency. Furthermore, we did not observe any evidence of parafoveal lexical preprocessing of word n + 2 in either experiment.
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/39481/
Source: PubMed
Parafoveal Processing of Word <i>n</i>+2 During Reading: Do the Preceding Words Matter?
Authors: Angele, B. and Rayner, K.
Journal: JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-HUMAN PERCEPTION AND PERFORMANCE
Volume: 37
Issue: 4
Pages: 1210-1220
eISSN: 1939-1277
ISSN: 0096-1523
DOI: 10.1037/a0023096
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/39481/
Source: Web of Science (Lite)
Preferred by: Bernhard Angele
Parafoveal processing of word n + 2 during reading: do the preceding words matter?
Authors: Angele, B. and Rayner, K.
Journal: Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance
Volume: 37
Issue: 4
Pages: 1210-1220
eISSN: 1939-1277
ISSN: 0096-1523
DOI: 10.1037/a0023096
Abstract:We used the boundary paradigm (Rayner, 1975) to test two hypotheses that might explain why no conclusive evidence has been found for the existence of n + 2 preprocessing effects. In Experiment 1, we tested whether parafoveal processing of the second word to the right of fixation (n + 2) takes place only when the preceding word (n + 1) is very short (Angele, Slattery, Yang, Kliegl, & Rayner, 2008); word n + 1 was always a three-letter word. Before crossing the boundary, preview for both words n + 1 and n + 2 was either incorrect or correct. In a third condition, only the preview for word n + 1 was incorrect. In Experiment 2, we tested whether word frequency of the preboundary word (n) had an influence on the presence of preview benefit and parafoveal-on-foveal effects. Additionally, Experiment 2 contained a condition in which only preview of n + 2 was incorrect. Our findings suggest that effects of parafoveal n + 2 preprocessing are not modulated by either n + 1 word length or n frequency. Furthermore, we did not observe any evidence of parafoveal lexical preprocessing of word n + 2 in either experiment.
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/39481/
Source: Europe PubMed Central
Parafoveal Processing of Word n + 2 During Reading: Do the Preceding Words Matter?
Authors: Angele, B. and Rayner, K.
Journal: Journal of Experimental Psychology
Volume: 37
Issue: 4
Pages: 1210-1220
ISSN: 0096-1523
Abstract:We used the boundary paradigm (Rayner, 1975) to test two hypotheses that might explain why no conclusive evidence has been found for the existence of n + 2 preprocessing effects. In Experiment 1, we tested whether parafoveal processing of the second word to the right of fixation (n + 2) takes place only when the preceding word (n + 1) is very short (Angele, Slattery, Yang, Kliegl, & Rayner, 2008); word n + 1 was always a three-letter word. Before crossing the boundary, preview for both words n + 1 and n + 2 was either incorrect or correct. In a third condition, only the preview for word n + 1 was incorrect. In Experiment 2, we tested whether word frequency of the preboundary word (n) had an influence on the presence of preview benefit and parafoveal-on-foveal effects. Additionally, Experiment 2 contained a condition in which only preview of n + 2 was incorrect. Our findings suggest that effects of parafoveal n + 2 preprocessing are not modulated by either n + 1 word length or n frequency. Furthermore, we did not observe any evidence of parafoveal lexical preprocessing of word n + 2 in either experiment. © 2011 American Psychological Association.
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/39481/
Source: BURO EPrints