4.6 Article

Ongoing Cognitive Processing Influences Precise Eye-Movement Targets in Reading

Journal

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE
Volume 31, Issue 4, Pages 351-362

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0956797620901766

Keywords

reading; eye movements; psycholinguistics; motor control; open data; open materials

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [0953870, 1734217, 1815529]
  2. National Institutes of Health [T32-DC000041, T32-DC000035, R01-HD065829]
  3. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr
  4. Div Of Information & Intelligent Systems [1815529] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  5. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie
  6. Division Of Behavioral and Cognitive Sci [1734217] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  7. Div Of Information & Intelligent Systems
  8. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr [0953870] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Reading is a highly complex learned skill in which humans move their eyes three to four times every second in response to visual and cognitive processing. The consensus view is that the details of these rapid eye-movement decisions-which part of a word to target with a saccade-are determined solely by low-level oculomotor heuristics. But maximally efficient saccade targeting would be sensitive to ongoing word identification, sending the eyes farther into a word the farther its identification has already progressed. Here, using a covert text-shifting paradigm, we showed just such a statistical relationship between saccade targeting in reading and trial-to-trial variability in cognitive processing. This result suggests that, rather than relying purely on heuristics, the human brain has learned to optimize eye movements in reading even at the fine-grained level of character-position targeting, reflecting efficiency-based sensitivity to ongoing cognitive processing.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available