Using E-Z Reader to Model the Effects of Higher-Level Language Processing on Eye Movements During Reading

By Erik D. Reichle, Tessa C. Warren, Kerry McConnell. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2009

388 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Although computational models of eye-movement control during reading have been used to explain how saccadic programming, visual constraints, attention allocation, and lexical processing jointly affect eye movements during reading, these models have largely ignored the issue of how higher level, postlexical language processing affects eye movements. The present article shows how one of these models, E-Z Reader (Pollatsek, Reichle, & Rayner, 2006c), can be augmented to redress this limitation. Simulations show that with a few simple assumptions, the model can account for the fact that effects of higher level language processing are not observed on eye movements when such processing is occurring without difficulty, but can capture the patterns of eye movements that are observed when such processing is slowed or disrupted.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Human-Computer Interaction

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f905c057827119b52d939da6693151c4dc2c88ad

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Human-Computer Interaction

Citations in the corpus

What is the scanpath signature of syntactic reanalysis (2011, background): “…applications include evaluation of computational models of oculo-motor control (Reichle et al., 1998; Engbert, Nuthmann, Richter, & Kliegl, 2005; Reichle et al., 2009) and visual attention (Itti, Koch, & Niebur, 1998), analysis of eye movements in the visual world paradigm, diagnosis of reading…”
Parafoveal processing in reading (2011, background): “The notion that readers can identify words out of order has been criticized as unrealistic (Rayner, Pollatsek, Liversedge, & Reichle, 2009; Reichle et al., 2009).”
TIMED AND UNTIMED GRAMMATICALITY JUDGMENTS MEASURE DISTINCT TYPES OF KNOWLEDGE (2015, methodology): “…out of the critical part of the sentence indicate reanalysis and controlled processing (compare Clifton & Staub, 2011 ; Clifton et al., 2007 ; Frazier & Rayner, 1982 ; Meseguer et al., 2002 ; Mitchell, Shen, Green, & Hodgson, 2008 ; Reichle et al., 2009 ; Von der Malsburg & Vasishth, 2011 ).”
Scanpaths reveal syntactic underspecification and reanalysis strategies (2012, background): “E-Z Reader 10 (Reichle et al., 2009), for instance, allows the eyes to peek at the next word, but not further ahead, while the current word is being integrated into the sentence context, giving rise to some spillover of processing difficulty.”
THE EFFECTS OF INPUT ENHANCEMENT ON GRAMMAR LEARNING AND COMPREHENSION (2013, background): “Enhancement stimulated more postlexical processing (Reichle et al., 2009 ) or, as I like to call it in a SLA context, post-form-noticing processing.”
Eye movements and non-canonical reading: comments on. (2009, positive): “In particular, the most recent version of the model, E-Z Reader 10 (Reichle et al., 2008), is designed to account for some higher order influences on eye fixations and, as a result, it does a better job of accounting for how problems with higher-level (post-lexical) language processing results in in”