Cargando…

Parafoveal X-masks interfere with foveal word recognition: evidence from fixation-related brain potentials

The boundary paradigm, in combination with parafoveal masks, is the main technique for studying parafoveal preprocessing during reading. The rationale is that the masks (e.g., strings of X's) prevent parafoveal preprocessing, but do not interfere with foveal processing. A recent study, however,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hutzler, Florian, Fuchs, Isabella, Gagl, Benjamin, Schuster, Sarah, Richlan, Fabio, Braun, Mario, Hawelka, Stefan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3719217/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23888130
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2013.00033
_version_ 1782277878782623744
author Hutzler, Florian
Fuchs, Isabella
Gagl, Benjamin
Schuster, Sarah
Richlan, Fabio
Braun, Mario
Hawelka, Stefan
author_facet Hutzler, Florian
Fuchs, Isabella
Gagl, Benjamin
Schuster, Sarah
Richlan, Fabio
Braun, Mario
Hawelka, Stefan
author_sort Hutzler, Florian
collection PubMed
description The boundary paradigm, in combination with parafoveal masks, is the main technique for studying parafoveal preprocessing during reading. The rationale is that the masks (e.g., strings of X's) prevent parafoveal preprocessing, but do not interfere with foveal processing. A recent study, however, raised doubts about the neutrality of parafoveal masks. In the present study, we explored this issue by means of fixation-related brain potentials (FRPs). Two FRP conditions presented rows of five words. The task of the participant was to judge whether the final word of a list was a “new” word, or whether it was a repeated (i.e., “old”) word. The critical manipulation was that the final word was X-masked during parafoveal preview in one condition, whereas another condition presented a valid preview of the word. In two additional event-related brain potential (ERP) conditions, the words were presented serially with no parafoveal preview available; in one of the conditions with a fixed timing, in the other word presentation was self-paced by the participants. Expectedly, the valid-preview FRP condition elicited the shortest processing times. Processing times did not differ between the two ERP conditions indicating that “cognitive readiness” during self-paced processing can be ruled out as an alternative explanation for differences in processing times between the ERP and the FRP conditions. The longest processing times were found in the X-mask FRP condition indicating that parafoveal X-masks interfere with foveal word recognition.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3719217
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37192172013-07-25 Parafoveal X-masks interfere with foveal word recognition: evidence from fixation-related brain potentials Hutzler, Florian Fuchs, Isabella Gagl, Benjamin Schuster, Sarah Richlan, Fabio Braun, Mario Hawelka, Stefan Front Syst Neurosci Neuroscience The boundary paradigm, in combination with parafoveal masks, is the main technique for studying parafoveal preprocessing during reading. The rationale is that the masks (e.g., strings of X's) prevent parafoveal preprocessing, but do not interfere with foveal processing. A recent study, however, raised doubts about the neutrality of parafoveal masks. In the present study, we explored this issue by means of fixation-related brain potentials (FRPs). Two FRP conditions presented rows of five words. The task of the participant was to judge whether the final word of a list was a “new” word, or whether it was a repeated (i.e., “old”) word. The critical manipulation was that the final word was X-masked during parafoveal preview in one condition, whereas another condition presented a valid preview of the word. In two additional event-related brain potential (ERP) conditions, the words were presented serially with no parafoveal preview available; in one of the conditions with a fixed timing, in the other word presentation was self-paced by the participants. Expectedly, the valid-preview FRP condition elicited the shortest processing times. Processing times did not differ between the two ERP conditions indicating that “cognitive readiness” during self-paced processing can be ruled out as an alternative explanation for differences in processing times between the ERP and the FRP conditions. The longest processing times were found in the X-mask FRP condition indicating that parafoveal X-masks interfere with foveal word recognition. Frontiers Media S.A. 2013-07-23 /pmc/articles/PMC3719217/ /pubmed/23888130 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2013.00033 Text en Copyright © 2013 Hutzler, Fuchs, Gagl, Schuster, Richlan, Braun and Hawelka. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in other forums, provided the original authors and source are credited and subject to any copyright notices concerning any third-party graphics etc.
spellingShingle Neuroscience
Hutzler, Florian
Fuchs, Isabella
Gagl, Benjamin
Schuster, Sarah
Richlan, Fabio
Braun, Mario
Hawelka, Stefan
Parafoveal X-masks interfere with foveal word recognition: evidence from fixation-related brain potentials
title Parafoveal X-masks interfere with foveal word recognition: evidence from fixation-related brain potentials
title_full Parafoveal X-masks interfere with foveal word recognition: evidence from fixation-related brain potentials
title_fullStr Parafoveal X-masks interfere with foveal word recognition: evidence from fixation-related brain potentials
title_full_unstemmed Parafoveal X-masks interfere with foveal word recognition: evidence from fixation-related brain potentials
title_short Parafoveal X-masks interfere with foveal word recognition: evidence from fixation-related brain potentials
title_sort parafoveal x-masks interfere with foveal word recognition: evidence from fixation-related brain potentials
topic Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3719217/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23888130
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2013.00033
work_keys_str_mv AT hutzlerflorian parafovealxmasksinterferewithfovealwordrecognitionevidencefromfixationrelatedbrainpotentials
AT fuchsisabella parafovealxmasksinterferewithfovealwordrecognitionevidencefromfixationrelatedbrainpotentials
AT gaglbenjamin parafovealxmasksinterferewithfovealwordrecognitionevidencefromfixationrelatedbrainpotentials
AT schustersarah parafovealxmasksinterferewithfovealwordrecognitionevidencefromfixationrelatedbrainpotentials
AT richlanfabio parafovealxmasksinterferewithfovealwordrecognitionevidencefromfixationrelatedbrainpotentials
AT braunmario parafovealxmasksinterferewithfovealwordrecognitionevidencefromfixationrelatedbrainpotentials
AT hawelkastefan parafovealxmasksinterferewithfovealwordrecognitionevidencefromfixationrelatedbrainpotentials