Two stages of parafoveal processing during reading: Evidence from a display change detection task

Authors: Angele, B., Slattery, T.J. and Rayner, K.

http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/23075/

http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0995-0

Journal: Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Pages: 1-9

ISSN: 1531-5320

DOI: 10.3758/s13423-015-0995-0

We used a display change detection paradigm (Slattery, Angele, & Rayner Human Perception and Performance, 37, 1924–1938 2011) to investigate whether display change detection uses orthographic regularity and whether detection is affected by the processing difficulty of the word preceding the boundary that triggers the display change. Subjects were significantly more sensitive to display changes when the change was from a nonwordlike preview than when the change was from a wordlike preview, but the preview benefit effect on the target word was not affected by whether the preview was wordlike or nonwordlike. Additionally, we did not find any influence of preboundary word frequency on display change detection performance. Our results suggest that display change detection and lexical processing do not use the same cognitive mechanisms. We propose that parafoveal processing takes place in two stages: an early, orthography-based, preattentional stage, and a late, attention-dependent lexical access stage.

This data was imported from PubMed:

Authors: Angele, B., Slattery, T.J. and Rayner, K.

http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/23075/

Journal: Psychon Bull Rev

Volume: 23

Issue: 4

Pages: 1241-1249

eISSN: 1531-5320

DOI: 10.3758/s13423-015-0995-0

We used a display change detection paradigm (Slattery, Angele, & Rayner Human Perception and Performance, 37, 1924-1938 2011) to investigate whether display change detection uses orthographic regularity and whether detection is affected by the processing difficulty of the word preceding the boundary that triggers the display change. Subjects were significantly more sensitive to display changes when the change was from a nonwordlike preview than when the change was from a wordlike preview, but the preview benefit effect on the target word was not affected by whether the preview was wordlike or nonwordlike. Additionally, we did not find any influence of preboundary word frequency on display change detection performance. Our results suggest that display change detection and lexical processing do not use the same cognitive mechanisms. We propose that parafoveal processing takes place in two stages: an early, orthography-based, preattentional stage, and a late, attention-dependent lexical access stage.

This data was imported from Scopus:

Authors: Angele, B., Slattery, T.J. and Rayner, K.

http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/23075/

Journal: Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volume: 23

Issue: 4

Pages: 1241-1249

eISSN: 1531-5320

ISSN: 1069-9384

DOI: 10.3758/s13423-015-0995-0

© 2016, The Author(s). We used a display change detection paradigm (Slattery, Angele, & Rayner Human Perception and Performance, 37, 1924–1938 2011) to investigate whether display change detection uses orthographic regularity and whether detection is affected by the processing difficulty of the word preceding the boundary that triggers the display change. Subjects were significantly more sensitive to display changes when the change was from a nonwordlike preview than when the change was from a wordlike preview, but the preview benefit effect on the target word was not affected by whether the preview was wordlike or nonwordlike. Additionally, we did not find any influence of preboundary word frequency on display change detection performance. Our results suggest that display change detection and lexical processing do not use the same cognitive mechanisms. We propose that parafoveal processing takes place in two stages: an early, orthography-based, preattentional stage, and a late, attention-dependent lexical access stage.

This data was imported from Web of Science (Lite):

Authors: Angele, B., Slattery, T.J. and Rayner, K.

http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/23075/

Journal: PSYCHONOMIC BULLETIN & REVIEW

Volume: 23

Issue: 4

Pages: 1241-1249

eISSN: 1531-5320

ISSN: 1069-9384

DOI: 10.3758/s13423-015-0995-0

The data on this page was last updated at 04:50 on December 11, 2018.