Abstract
The present experiment investigated semantic information extraction in parafoveal word perception. An ambiguous word (bank) was presented in foveal vision, and simultaneously a disambiguating word (water, money) was presented in the parafovea. Subjects were required to make a forced choice between two phrases, and the task was constructed so that a correct choice could be made if semantic information about both the foveal and parafoveal word had been obtained. However, the results indicated that the forced-choice results could be explained by two factors: identification of the parafoveal word and correct guessing. Hence, it was concluded that those models of reading which rely on unconscious semantic preprocessing of parafoveal words were not supported.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams, M. J. Models of word recognition.Cognitive Psychology, 1979,11, 133–176.
Allport, D. A. On knowing the meaning of words we are unable to report: The effects of visual masking. In S. Dornic (Ed.),Attention and performance. VI. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum, 1977.
Bradshaw, J. L. Peripherally presented and unreported words may bias the perceived meaning of a centrally fixated homograph.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974,103, 1200–1202.
Cramer, P. A study of homographs. In L. Postman & G. Keppel (Eds.),Norms and word associations. New York: Academic Press, 1970.
Ellis, A. W., &Marshall, J. C. Semantic errors or statistical flukes? A note on Allport’s “On knowing the meaning of words we are unable to report: The effects of visual masking.”Quarterly Journal oj Experimental Psychology, 1978,30, 569–575.
Hochberg, J. Components of literacy: Speculations and exploratory research. In H. Levin & J. P. Williams (Eds.),Basic studies on reading. New York: Basic Books, 1970.
Huey, E. B.The psychology and pedagogy of reading. New York: Macmillan, 1908. (Republished by M.I.T. Press, 1977.)
Kučera, H., &Francis, W. N.Computational analysis of present day American English. Providence, R.I: Brown University Press, 1967.
Lackner, J. R., &Garrett, M. F. Resolving ambiguity: Effects of biasing context in the unattended ear.Cognition, 1972,1/4, 359–373.
Lewis, J. L. Semantic processing of unattended messages using dichotic listening.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1970,85, 225–228.
Marcel, T. Unconscious reading: Experiments on people who do not know they are reading.Visible Language, 1978,12, 392–404.
McConkie, G. W. On the role and control of eye movements in reading. In P. A. Kolers, M. E. Wrolstad, & H. Bouma (Eds.),Processing of visual language (Vol. I). New York: Plenum Press, 1979.
McConkie, G. W., &Rayner, K. The span of the effective stimulus during a fixation in reading.Perception & Psychophysics, 1975,17, 578–586.
Neisser, U.Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts, 1967.
Rayner, K. The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading.Cognitive Psychology, 1975,7, 65–81.
Rayner, K. Eye movements in reading and information processing.Psychological Bulletin, 1978,85, 618–660.
Rayner, K. Eye movements in reading: Eye guidance and integration. In P. A. Kolers, M. E. Wrolstad, & H. Bouma (Eds.),Processing of visual language (Vol. I). New York: Plenum Press, 1979.
Rayner, K., &Bertera, J. Reading without a fovea.Science, 1979,206, 468–469.
Rayner, K., McConkie, G. W., &Zola, G. S. Integrating information across eye movements.Cognitive Psychology, 1980,12, 206–226.
Rayner, K., Inhoff, A. W., Morrison, R. E., Slowiaczek, M., & Bertera, J. Masking of foveal and para foveal vision during eye fixations in reading.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, in press.
Riggs, L. A. Visual acuity. In C. H. Graham (Ed.),Vision and visual perception. New York: Wiley, 1965.
Websters New Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield, Mass: Merriam, 1973.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by Grant HD12727 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and Grant BNS79-17600 from the National Science Foundation. The first author was supported by a fellowship from the DAAD of the Federal Republic of Germany.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Inhoff, A.W., Rayner, K. Parafoveal word perception: A case against semantic preprocessing. Perception & Psychophysics 27, 457–464 (1980). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204463
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204463