Author:
Melcher David,Alaberkyan Ani,Anastasaki Chrysi,Liu Xiaoyi,Deodato Michele,Marsicano Gianluca,Almeida Diogo
Abstract
AbstractA key aspect of efficient visual processing is to use current and previous information to make predictions about what we will see next. In natural viewing, and when looking at words, there is typically an indication of forthcoming visual information from extrafoveal areas of the visual field before we make an eye movement to an object or word of interest. This “preview effect” has been studied for many years in the word reading literature and, more recently, in object perception. Here, we integrated methods from word recognition and object perception to investigate the timing of the preview on neural measures of word recognition. Through a combined use of EEG and eye-tracking, a group of multilingual participants took part in a gaze-contingent, single-shot saccade experiment in which words appeared in their parafoveal visual field. In valid preview trials, the same word was presented during the preview and after the saccade, while in the invalid condition, the saccade target was a number string that turned into a word during the saccade. As hypothesized, the valid preview greatly reduced the fixation-related evoked response. Interestingly, multivariate decoding analyses revealed much earlier preview effects than previously reported for words, and individual decoding performance correlated with participant reading scores. These results demonstrate that a parafoveal preview can influence relatively early aspects of post-saccadic word processing and help to resolve some discrepancies between the word and object literatures.
Funder
Tamkeen
New York University Abu Dhabi
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference133 articles.
1. Almeida, D., & Poeppel, D. (2013). Word-specific repetition effects revealed by MEG and the implications for lexical access. Brain and Language, 127(3), 497–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2013.09.013
2. Andrews, S., & Veldre, A. (2019). What is the most plausible account of the role of parafoveal processing in reading? Language and Linguistics Compass, 13(7). https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12344
3. Antúnez, M., López-Pérez, P. J., Dampuré, J., & Barber, H. A. (2022). Frequency-based foveal load modulates semantic parafoveal-on-foveal effects. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 63, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2022.101071
4. 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.), The Oxford handbook of eye movements (pp. 857–870). Oxford University Press.
5. Baccino, T., & Manunta, Y. (2005). Eye-fixation-related potentials: Insight into parafoveal processing. Journal of Psychophysiology, 19(3), 204–215. https://doi.org/10.1027/0269-8803.19.3.204