Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
com/
Parafoveal Magnification : Visual Acuity Does Not Modulate the Perceptual Span in Reading
Sbastien Miellet, Patrick J. O'Donnell and Sara C. Sereno
Psychological Science 2009 20: 721
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02364.x
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Additional services and information for Psychological Science can be found at:
Subscriptions: http://pss.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Research Article
Parafoveal Magnification
Visual Acuity Does Not Modulate the Perceptual Span in
Reading
Sebastien Miellet, Patrick J. ODonnell, and Sara C. Sereno
University of Glasgow
ABSTRACTModels of eye guidance in reading rely on the On the basis of acuity limitations, the visual field is func-
concept of the perceptual spanthe amount of informa- tionally divided into three areas: the fovea, parafovea, and pe-
tion perceived during a single eye fixation, which is con- riphery. Visual acuity is maximal in the foveal region. In reading
sidered to be a consequence of visual and attentional experiments (Balota & Rayner, 1991), this region, the central 21
constraints. To directly investigate attentional mecha- of visual angle around fixation, generally encompasses 6 to 8
nisms underlying the perceptual span, we implemented a characters. The parafoveal region, from 21 to 51, extends beyond
new reading paradigmparafoveal magnification (PM) the foveal region to about 15 to 20 characters, and the peripheral
that compensates for how visual acuity drops off as a region includes everything beyond 51 from fixation.
function of retinal eccentricity. On each fixation and in The perceptual span has been functionally approximated from
real time, parafoveal text is magnified to equalize its per- moving-window studies (McConkie & Rayner, 1975), in which
ceptual impact with that of concurrent foveal text. Ex- text outside a window defined around the fixated letter is altered
periment 1 demonstrated that PM does not increase the in some way (e.g., valid text is replaced by strings of Xs). When
amount of text that is processed, supporting an attention- parafoveal preview of upcoming text is invalid, reading time is
al-based account of eye movements in reading. Experiment slowed. For English, the perceptual span is estimated to extend
2 explored a contentious issue that differentiates compet- from 3 characters to the left of fixation (approximately the be-
ing models of eye movement control and showed that, even ginning of the fixated word) to 14 characters to the right of fix-
when parafoveal information is enlarged, visual attention ation. The spans asymmetry is not hardwired, but instead
in reading is allocated in a serial fashion from word to reflects attentional demands linked to reading direction: In
word. Hebrew (which is read from right to left), the perceptual span
extends further to the left (Pollatsek, Bolozky, Well, & Rayner,
1981).
During reading, the eyes remain stationary for brief periods The perceptual span plays a key role in models of eye guid-
called fixations (typically 200250 ms), during which visual ance in reading. The assumption that ongoing cognitive pro-
information is extracted. Fixations are punctuated by short (68 cessing is a principal determinant of eye movement control
characters) and rapid (!25 ms) movements called saccades. (Rayner, Sereno, & Raney, 1996) is the central feature of current
Making eye movements is necessary because of limitations in models. Models differ, however, in how visual attention is allo-
visual acuity and attention. The perceptual span is defined as cated, as exemplified by their differing accounts of the parafo-
that region of text from which useful information can be ex- veal-preview benefit (i.e., the advantage in fixation time on a
tracted (for a review, see Rayner, 1998). The relative influence of word when parafoveal information obtained from the prior fix-
visual and attentional constraints on the perceptual span in ation is valid, relative to when this information is invalid;
reading is underspecified. In this article, we report work ex- Rayner, 1975). In sequential attention-shift (SAS) models, the
ploring this question and interpret our results in light of current parafoveal-preview benefit is due to a covert, serial movement of
models of eye guidance in reading. attention toward the parafoveal word before the eye movement to
that word (e.g., Morrison, 1984; E-Z Reader: Reichle, Rayner, &
Pollatsek, 2003). In guidance-by-attentional-gradient (GAG)
Address correspondence to Sebastien Miellet, Department of Psy-
chology, 58 Hillhead St., University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QB, models, the preview benefit is explained by parallel processing
Scotland, United Kingdom, e-mail: s.miellet@psy.gla.ac.uk. of several words within the perceptual span (e.g., SWIFT:
722 Downloaded from pss.sagepub.com by guest on August 13, 2011 Volume 20Number 6
Sebastien Miellet, Patrick J. ODonnell, and Sara C. Sereno
METHOD participant read all the sentences; however, the order of the
conditions and the sentences within each condition varied
Participants across four participant groups, each consisting of 10 partici-
A total of 60 native English speakers (mean age 5 24 years; 37 pants. Sentence sets were roughly equated for sentence length
females, 23 males) were paid to participate in the experiments, (maximum of 60 characters), number of words, and difficulty.
40 in Experiment 1 and 20 in Experiment 2. All had normal or The window size corresponded to the number of characters to the
corrected-to-normal vision. right of fixation that were visible; characters outside this window
were presented as Xs. In the 21-, 14-, and 7-character condi-
tions, the leftward extent of the window was held constant at 7
Apparatus
characters.
Eye movements were monitored via an SR Research (Missis-
sauga, Ontario, Canada) Desktop Mount EyeLink 2K eye
Experiment 2
tracker, with a chin-forehead rest. This eye tracker has a spatial
Participants in Experiment 2 viewed a total of 100 experimental
resolution of 0.011, and eye position was sampled at 1000 Hz
sentences, all presented with PM. These sentences were used in
using corneal reflection and pupil tracking. Text was presented
a prior study, conducted both in English and in French (Miellet,
on a Dell P1130 19-in. CRT. Letters were black, on a white
Pernet, ODonnell, & Sereno, 2007). In that study, we manipu-
background. Viewing was binocular, and eye movements were
lated the overall plausibility and component-word frequencies
recorded from the right eye. At the viewing distance of ap-
of adjective-noun phrases: These phrases were either plausible
proximately 72 cm, three characters of nonmagnified text
(P) or less plausible (LP), and the adjectives and nouns were
(25 pixels) subtended 11 of visual angle. The CRT was run at
either high frequency (HF; 204 occurrences per million for
170 Hz, and updating the display, which was contingent on gaze
adjectives, 277 occurrences per million for nouns) or low fre-
position, took 8 ms on average.
quency (LF; 4 occurrences per million for adjectives, 7 occur-
rences per million for nouns).
PM Implementation Crossing plausibility, adjective frequency, and noun fre-
PM was used to perceptually equate parafoveal and foveal in- quency gave rise to eight conditions. Frequency values were
formation. We progressively magnified parafoveal text, in- obtained from the Web site of the British National Corpus (http://
creasing font size for each successive letter outside the foveated www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk), which consists of 90 million written
letters. Each sentence display was calculated and updated on- words. Natural log values (the standard measure in models of eye
line in order to assign a different size and position for each movement control) were also calculated. To generate the mate-
character depending on its fixation location in the sentence. rials for the P and LP adjective-noun phrases, we determined
The size-increase function was taken from Anstis (1974), who contextual constraint via three indices. First, we measured
showed that as distance from the fovea increases, the stimulus predictability using a Cloze task in which 10 participants were
needs to be enlarged to be perceived equally well. Anstiss asked to generate a word following a sentence fragment that
original equation is as follows: y 5 (0.046) n x, where y is the ended just before the target noun phrase. They were then told
letter size and x is the visual eccentricity in degrees. We chose a what the actual word was (the adjective) and asked to generate
factor of 0.069 (1.5 times the original) in order to ensure a clear another word to follow this augmented sentence fragment. Re-
advantage in parafoveal identification. Finally, we maintained sponses were coded as 1 for a correctly guessed word and 0
the center of gravity of text across all letters, aligning the for other responses (mean scores for adjectives: P 5 .015, LP 5
middles of all letter bodies, so that eye movements programmed .000; mean scores for nouns: P 5 .117, LP 5 .005). Second, we
to the center of an enlarged parafoveal letter would land on the indexed contextual constraint using a plausibility task in which
center of that letter when it became foveal (and smaller). The a different set of 20 participants were asked to rate the plausi-
software was written in MatLab (R2006a), using the Psycho- bility of each entire adjective-noun phrase on a 7-point scale
physics (PTB-3) and Eyelink Toolbox extensions (Brainard, (1 5 low plausibility, 7 5 high plausibility; mean ratings were
1997; Cornelissen, Peters, & Palmer, 2002). 6.08 and 3.50 for P and LP phrases, respectively). Third, we
indexed contextual constraint using the transitional probability
value (obtained from the Brigham Young University interface of
Materials and Design
the British National Corpus; http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/) of each
Experiment 1 noun phrase (i.e., the conditional probability of the noun given
Participants in Experiment 1 viewed a total of 160 single-line the adjective; mean values were .017 and .000 for P and LP
experimental sentences. The design crossed font (normal, PM) phrases, respectively).
and window condition (no window, 21 characters, 14 characters, Length of the target words (i.e., adjectives and nouns)
7 characters), giving rise to eight experimental conditions. was similar across the eight experimental conditions (average 5
Twenty sentences were presented in each condition. Every 5.8 characters). Twenty sentences were presented in the
Volume 20Number 6 Downloaded from pss.sagepub.com by guest on August 13, 2011 723
Visual and Attentional Constraints in Reading
724 Downloaded from pss.sagepub.com by guest on August 13, 2011 Volume 20Number 6
Sebastien Miellet, Patrick J. ODonnell, and Sara C. Sereno
TABLE 2
Average Saccade Length and Comparisons Between Font Conditions in Experiment 1
Note. The number of characters in the window conditions refers to the number of valid characters displayed to the right of
fixation. PM 5 parafoveal magnification.
TABLE 3
Reliable Pair-Wise Comparisons of Window Conditions in Experiment 1
Note. The number of characters refers to the number of valid characters displayed to the right of fixation. PM 5 parafoveal
magnification.
Volume 20Number 6 Downloaded from pss.sagepub.com by guest on August 13, 2011 725
Visual and Attentional Constraints in Reading
726 Downloaded from pss.sagepub.com by guest on August 13, 2011 Volume 20Number 6
Sebastien Miellet, Patrick J. ODonnell, and Sara C. Sereno
multiple fixations on Word 1, but only when this fixation is close Bai, X., Yan, G., Zang, C., Liversedge, S., & Rayner, K. (2008).
to Word 2. Unfortunately, we could not test this hypothesis be- Reading spaced and unspaced Chinese text: Evidence from eye
cause there were too few cases of two successive fixations on movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Per-
ception and Performance, 34, 12771287.
Word 1 in our data set (only 246 data points). A parallel model
Balota, D., & Rayner, K. (1991). Word recognition processes in foveal
would also predict greater parafoveal-on-foveal effects for fix- and parafoveal vision: The range of influence of lexical vari-
ations near the end of a word than for fixations earlier in the ables. In D. Besner & G. Humphreys (Eds.), Basic processes in
word, because the next word is more visible. However, acuity did reading: Visual word recognition (pp. 198232). Hillsdale, NJ:
not decline with eccentricity in our experiment. Acuity drop-off Erlbaum.
was a factor in our previous study (Miellet et al., 2007), in which Brainard, D.H. (1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10,
participants read the materials from Experiment 2 in a normal 433436.
Cornelissen, F.W., Peters, E., & Palmer, J. (2002). The Eyelink Tool-
font. The only parafoveal-on-foveal effect revealed in that study
box: Eye tracking with MATLAB and the Psychophysics Toolbox.
was an effect of the length of Word 2 on GD for Word 1; the Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34, 613
frequency and predictability of Word 2 did not affect fixation 617.
times for Word 1. It seems that the very same mechanism that Drieghe, D., Brysbaert, M., & Desmet, T. (2005). Parafoveal-on-foveal
facilitates parafoveal processing in PM (increased text size) also effects on eye movements in text reading: Does an extra space
generates more saccadic undershoots because the parafoveal make a difference? Vision Research, 45, 16931706.
Drieghe, D., Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2008). Mislocated fixations
target is further away.
can account for parafoveal-on-foveal effects in eye movements
We close by suggesting some directions for further research. during reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,
One concerns the fact that a stronger test of parafoveal semantic 61, 12391249.
preprocessing is needed. One limitation of Experiment 2 was Engbert, R., Nuthmann, A., Richter, E.M., & Kliegl, R. (2005). A
that, although the plausibility of the noun phrases was carefully dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. Psycho-
manipulated, the lexical predictability of the nouns (as assessed logical Review, 112, 777813.
by the Cloze task) was fairly weak. If the nouns were contextually Harwood, M.R., Madelain, L., Krauzlis, R.J., & Wallman, J. (2008).
The spatial scale of attention strongly modulates saccade laten-
highly predictable, reliable parafoveal-on-foveal effects might
cies. Journal of Neurophysiology, 99, 17431757.
be observed for early fixation times on the adjectives. Inhoff, A.W., Eiter, B.M., & Radach, R. (2005). Time course of lin-
A more fundamental issue concerns the act of reading itself. guistic information extraction from consecutive words during eye
All our participants had nearly two decades of experience fixations in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
reading text in normal font, whereas their PM experience was Perception and Performance, 31, 979995.
limited to 100 or so sentences (including practice). Thus, per- Kennedy, A. (2008). Parafoveal-on-foveal effects are not an artifact of
mislocated saccades. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 2(1),
ceptual learning may play a significant role in reading (e.g.,
Article 2. Retrieved April 30, 2009, from http://www.jemr.org/
Nazir et al., 1998). In terms of global measures of reading, PM online/2/1/2
neither helped nor hurt performance, most likely because of two Kennedy, A., & Pynte, J. (2005). Parafoveal-on-foveal effects in nor-
opposing influences of PM: (a) a facilitative effect due to easier mal reading. Vision Research, 45, 153168.
identification of parafoveal letters and (b) a disruptive effect due Killeen, P.R. (2005). An alternative to null-hypothesis significance
to processing of spatially atypical parafoveal information. Bai, tests. Psychological Science, 16, 345353.
Yan, Zang, Liversedge, and Rayner (2008) developed a similar Kliegl, R., Nuthmann, A., & Engbert, R. (2006). Tracking the mind
during reading: The influence of past, present, and future words
argument to explain why nonstandard, spaced presentation of
on fixation durations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Gen-
words in Chinese neither aids nor impairs reading. In a context eral, 135, 1235.
contrived to maximize the perceptual impact of text, several Legge, G.E., Hooven, T.A., Klitz, T.S., Mansfield, J.S., & Tjan, B.S.
hours of PM training may indeed prove beneficial to reading. (2002). Mr. Chips 2002: New insights from an ideal-observer
model of reading. Vision Research, 42, 22192234.
Lorch, R.F., & Myers, J.L. (1990). Regression analyses of repeated
AcknowledgmentsThis research was supported by Eco- measures data in cognitive research. Journal of Experimental Psy-
nomic and Social Research Council Grant RES-000-22-1907 to chology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 149157.
McConkie, G.W., & Rayner, K. (1975). The span of the effective
S.C. Sereno, S. Miellet, and P.J. ODonnell. We thank Christo-
stimulus during a fixation in reading. Perception & Psychophysics,
pher J. Hand for providing materials for Experiment 1, and Si- 17, 578586.
mon Liversedge, Denis Drieghe, and an anonymous reviewer for Miellet, S., Pernet, C., ODonnell, P.J., & Sereno, S.C. (2007, August).
their helpful comments on an earlier version of the article. English versus French: Determinants of eye movement control in
reading. Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the European
Conference on Eye Movements, Potsdam, Germany.
REFERENCES Morrison, R.E. (1984). Manipulation of stimulus onset delay in read-
ing: Evidence for parallel programming of saccades. Journal of
Anstis, S.M. (1974). A chart demonstrating variations in acuity with Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,
retinal position. Vision Research, 14, 589592. 10, 667682.
Volume 20Number 6 Downloaded from pss.sagepub.com by guest on August 13, 2011 727
Visual and Attentional Constraints in Reading
Morrison, R.E., & Rayner, K. (1981). Saccade size in reading depends Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,
upon character spaces and not visual angle. Perception & Psy- 22, 11881200.
chophysics, 30, 395396. Rayner, K., Warren, T., Juhasz, B., & Liversedge, S. (2004). The effects
Nazir, T.A., Jacobs, A.M., & ORegan, J.K. (1998). Letter legibility and of plausibility on eye movements in reading. Journal of Experi-
visual word recognition. Memory & Cognition, 26, 810821. mental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 1290
ORegan, J.K., & Jacobs, A.M. (1992). Optimal viewing position effect 1301.
in word recognition: A challenge to current theory. Journal of Reichle, E.D., Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2003). The E-Z Reader
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, model of eye movement control in reading: Comparisons to other
18, 185197. models. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26, 445476.
Pollatsek, A., Bolozky, S., Well, A.D., & Rayner, K. (1981). Asym- Reilly, R.G., & Radach, R. (2003). Foundations of an interactive ac-
metries in the perceptual span for Israeli readers. Brain and tivation model of eye movement control in reading. In J. Hyona,
Language, 14, 174180. R. Radach, & H. Deubel (Eds.), The minds eye: Cognitive and
Rayner, K. (1975). The perceptual span and peripheral cues in read- applied aspects of eye movement research (pp. 429455). Am-
ing. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 6581. sterdam: Elsevier.
Rayner, K. (1979). Eye guidance in reading: Fixation locations within Richter, E.M., Engbert, R., & Kliegl, R. (2006). Current advances in
words. Perception, 8, 2130. SWIFT. Cognitive Systems Research, 7, 2333.
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information process-
ing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372422.
Rayner, K., Sereno, S.C., & Raney, G.E. (1996). Eye movement control
in reading: A comparison of two types of models. Journal of (RECEIVED 5/16/08; REVISION ACCEPTED 11/6/08)
728 Downloaded from pss.sagepub.com by guest on August 13, 2011 Volume 20Number 6