1. 26 ms 9 ms

2. Low High Predictability 7-9 Low High Predictability 4-6 Low High Predictability 1-3 Launch Distance from Target (# letters)

3. Low High Predictability 7-9 Low High Predictability 4-6 Low High Predictability 1-3 Launch Distance from Target (# letters)

4. Apparent additive effect of Freq & Pred in reading is comprised of opposing interactive effects. Possible explanations: –Frequency first –Floors and ceilings Launch site important Conclusions

5. Possible explanations Conclusions

6. Low High Predictability 7-9 Low High Predictability 4-6 Low High Predictability 1-3 Launch Distance from Target (# letters)

7. 26 ms 9 ms

8. water …grabbed a bottle of water from a… 1-3 7-94-6 Launch Distance Target-1 fixation frequencyn.s.n.s.marg. predictabilityn.s.n.s.** Target fixation frequency predictability process current word(s) Identify fixation target form process current word(s) Identify fixation target meaning process current word(s) Identify fixation target meaning

11. Low High Predictability 7-9 Low High Predictability 4-6 Low High Predictability 1-3 Launch Distance from Target (# letters)

12. Low High Predictability 7-9 Low High Predictability 4-6 Low High Predictability 1-3 Launch Distance from Target (# letters)

13. Low High Predictability 7-9 Low High Predictability 4-6 Low High Predictability 1-3 Launch Distance from Target (# letters)

14. “Parafoveal-on-foveal” effects ( oh no! ): –When the ease or difficulty in processing a parafoveal target initially manifests itself on the current, pre-target fixation. Effects Before the Target? water …grabbed a bottle of water from a… location of current, pre-target fixation

15. 4 ms (marg.) 6 ms (p<.01)

17. Parafoveal Processing Influences Word Frequency & Predictability Effects on Eye Movements during Reading Christopher Sébastien Patrick Sara Hand Miellet O’Donnell Sereno University of Glasgow (est. 1451) Glasgow Language Processing

18. Parafoveal Processing Influences Word Frequency & Predictability Effects on Eye Movements during Reading GULP G lasgow U niversity L anguage P rocessing University of Glasgow (est. 1451)

19. Parafoveal Processing Influences Word Frequency & Predictability Effects on Eye Movements during Reading Christopher Sébastien Patrick Sara Hand Miellet O’Donnell Sereno GULP Glasgow University Language Processing University of Glasgow (est. 1451)

20. Parafoveal Processing Influences Word Frequency & Predictability Effects on Eye Movements during Reading Christopher Sébastien Patrick Sara Hand Miellet O’Donnell Sereno University of Glasgow (est. 1451) Glasgow Language Processing

21. Method Participants: 64 –native English speaking; normal vision; not dyslexic –mean age = 22.2 (range: 18-41); #F=47, #M=17 Apparatus: Dual-Purkinje Eyetracker (Gen 5.5) Materials & Design: Conditions: Frequency (HF,LF) x Predictability (HP,LP) Targets: HF & LF targets matched pair-wise on word length (mean=5.84 letters; range: 5-8 letters) WOW!

22. Materials & Design Participants: 64 Apparatus: Dual-Purkinje Eyetracker (Gen 5.5.) Materials & Design: Conditions: Frequency (HF,LF) x Predictability (HP,LP) Targets: HF & LF targets matched pairwise on word length (5-8 letters; avg = xx) === HF === === LF === HP LP HP LP Frequency (BNC, per million) 145 145 4 4 Predictability (1-7) 6.19 4.07 6.11 3.69 Cloze probability 0.57 0.02 0.50 0.01

23. Freq X Pred: Eye Movements Altarriba, Kroll, Sholl, & Rayner (1996) Lavinge, Vitu, & d’Ydewalle (2000) Rayner, Binder, Ashby, & Pollatsek (2001) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Rayner, Ashby, Pollatsek, & Reichle (2004) Miellet, Sparrow, & Sereno (in press) Inhoff (1984) conducted en français

24. Freq X Pred: Eye Movements Altarriba, Kroll, Sholl, & Rayner (1996) Lavinge, Vitu, & d’Ydewalle (2000) Rayner, Binder, Ashby, & Pollatsek (2001) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Rayner, Ashby, Pollatsek, & Reichle (2004) Miellet, Sparrow, & Sereno (in press) Inhoff (1984) conducte d in French

25. High Low Predictable High Low Predictable High Low Predictable 7-9 4-61-3 Launch Distance from Target (# letters)

26. Rayner et al. (2004) Limitations Remedies Items per condition: 8 Length of context (# pre-target words): 7.7 words Target embedded in: single sentence 22 15.5 2 nd of 2 sentences

27. Freq X Pred: Eye Movements Altarriba, Kroll, Sholl, & Rayner (1996) Lavinge, Vitu, & d’Ydewalle (2000) Rayner, Binder, Ashby, & Pollatsek (2001) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Rayner, Ashby, Pollatsek, & Reichle (2004) Miellet, Sparrow, & Sereno (in press) Inhoff (1984)

28. Method Participants: 64 (mean age = 22; #F=47) Apparatus: Dual-Purkinje Eyetracker (Gen 5.5) Materials & Design: Frequency (HF,LF) x Predictability (HP,LP) HF & LF targets matched pair-wise on word length (mean = 5.84 letters; range: 5-8 letters) WOW! HF LF HP LP HP LP Frequency (BNC, per million) 145 145 4 4 Predictability (1-7) 6.19 4.07 6.11 3.69 Cloze probability 0.57 0.02 0.50 0.01

29. Method Materials & Design: Frequency (HF,LF) x Predictability (HP,LP) HF & LF targets matched pair-wise on word length (mean = 5.84 letters; range: 5-8 letters) HF LF HP LP HP LP Frequency (BNC, per million) 145 145 4 4 Predictability (1-7) 6.19 4.07 6.11 3.69 Cloze probability.57.02.50.01 # of items 22 22 22 22

30. Method Materials & Design: Frequency (HF,LF) x Predictability (HP,LP) HF & LF targets matched pair-wise on word length (mean = 5.84 letters; range: 5-8 letters) HF LF HP LP HP LP Frequency (BNC, per million) 145 145 4 4 Predictability (1-7) 6.19 4.07 6.11 3.69 Cloze probability.57.02.50.01 # of items 22 22 22 22

31. Results: Fixation Time Measures Early –First fixation duration (FFD) –Single fixation duration (SFD) –Gaze duration (GD) –Probability of skipping (skip) = [1 – prob(fixation)] Later –Next forward-going fixation (next) –Total Fixation Time (TT) –# regressions into target, # regressions out of target 1 fix 2+ fixskipreject 63% 12%21% 4%

32. Parafoveal Pre-processing In reading, words are processed parafoveally Before they are foveated. Reading involves foveal processing and Parafoveal processing before the

33. time TIMETIME

34. In fact, the EM condition most resembling RT presentation (i.e., no parafoveal preview), only shows a frequency effect in early measures. However, different patterns emerge when fixation time is McConkie’s N ?

35. Low High Predictability 7-9 Low High Predictability 4-6 Low High Predictability 1-3 Launch Distance from Target (# letters)