Cargando…

Linguistic processes do not beat visuo-motor constraints, but they modulate where the eyes move regardless of word boundaries: Evidence against top-down word-based eye-movement control during reading

Where readers move their eyes, while proceeding forward along lines of text, has long been assumed to be determined in a top-down word-based manner. According to this classical view, readers of alphabetic languages would invariably program their saccades towards the center of peripheral target words...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Albrengues, Claire, Lavigne, Frédéric, Aguilar, Carlos, Castet, Eric, Vitu, Françoise
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6645505/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31329614
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219666
_version_ 1783437475247554560
author Albrengues, Claire
Lavigne, Frédéric
Aguilar, Carlos
Castet, Eric
Vitu, Françoise
author_facet Albrengues, Claire
Lavigne, Frédéric
Aguilar, Carlos
Castet, Eric
Vitu, Françoise
author_sort Albrengues, Claire
collection PubMed
description Where readers move their eyes, while proceeding forward along lines of text, has long been assumed to be determined in a top-down word-based manner. According to this classical view, readers of alphabetic languages would invariably program their saccades towards the center of peripheral target words, as selected based on the (expected) needs of ongoing (word-identification) processing, and the variability in within-word landing positions would exclusively result from systematic and random errors. Here we put this predominant hypothesis to a strong test by estimating the respective influences of language-related variables (word frequency and word predictability) and lower-level visuo-motor factors (word length and saccadic launch-site distance to the beginning of words) on both word-skipping likelihood and within-word landing positions. Our eye-movement data were collected while forty participants read 316 pairs of sentences, that differed only by one word, the prime; this was either semantically related or unrelated to a following test word of variable frequency and length. We found that low-level visuo-motor variables largely predominated in determining which word would be fixated next, and where in a word the eye would land. In comparison, language-related variables only had tiny influences. Yet, linguistic variables affected both the likelihood of word skipping and within-word initial landing positions, all depending on the words’ length and how far on average the eye landed from the word boundaries, but pending the word could benefit from peripheral preview. These findings provide a strong case against the predominant word-based account of eye-movement guidance during reading, by showing that saccades are primarily driven by low-level visuo-motor processes, regardless of word boundaries, while being overall subject to subtle, one-off, language-based modulations. Our results also suggest that overall distributions of saccades’ landing positions, instead of truncated within-word landing-site distributions, should be used for a better understanding of eye-movement guidance during reading.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6645505
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66455052019-07-25 Linguistic processes do not beat visuo-motor constraints, but they modulate where the eyes move regardless of word boundaries: Evidence against top-down word-based eye-movement control during reading Albrengues, Claire Lavigne, Frédéric Aguilar, Carlos Castet, Eric Vitu, Françoise PLoS One Research Article Where readers move their eyes, while proceeding forward along lines of text, has long been assumed to be determined in a top-down word-based manner. According to this classical view, readers of alphabetic languages would invariably program their saccades towards the center of peripheral target words, as selected based on the (expected) needs of ongoing (word-identification) processing, and the variability in within-word landing positions would exclusively result from systematic and random errors. Here we put this predominant hypothesis to a strong test by estimating the respective influences of language-related variables (word frequency and word predictability) and lower-level visuo-motor factors (word length and saccadic launch-site distance to the beginning of words) on both word-skipping likelihood and within-word landing positions. Our eye-movement data were collected while forty participants read 316 pairs of sentences, that differed only by one word, the prime; this was either semantically related or unrelated to a following test word of variable frequency and length. We found that low-level visuo-motor variables largely predominated in determining which word would be fixated next, and where in a word the eye would land. In comparison, language-related variables only had tiny influences. Yet, linguistic variables affected both the likelihood of word skipping and within-word initial landing positions, all depending on the words’ length and how far on average the eye landed from the word boundaries, but pending the word could benefit from peripheral preview. These findings provide a strong case against the predominant word-based account of eye-movement guidance during reading, by showing that saccades are primarily driven by low-level visuo-motor processes, regardless of word boundaries, while being overall subject to subtle, one-off, language-based modulations. Our results also suggest that overall distributions of saccades’ landing positions, instead of truncated within-word landing-site distributions, should be used for a better understanding of eye-movement guidance during reading. Public Library of Science 2019-07-22 /pmc/articles/PMC6645505/ /pubmed/31329614 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219666 Text en © 2019 Albrengues et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Albrengues, Claire
Lavigne, Frédéric
Aguilar, Carlos
Castet, Eric
Vitu, Françoise
Linguistic processes do not beat visuo-motor constraints, but they modulate where the eyes move regardless of word boundaries: Evidence against top-down word-based eye-movement control during reading
title Linguistic processes do not beat visuo-motor constraints, but they modulate where the eyes move regardless of word boundaries: Evidence against top-down word-based eye-movement control during reading
title_full Linguistic processes do not beat visuo-motor constraints, but they modulate where the eyes move regardless of word boundaries: Evidence against top-down word-based eye-movement control during reading
title_fullStr Linguistic processes do not beat visuo-motor constraints, but they modulate where the eyes move regardless of word boundaries: Evidence against top-down word-based eye-movement control during reading
title_full_unstemmed Linguistic processes do not beat visuo-motor constraints, but they modulate where the eyes move regardless of word boundaries: Evidence against top-down word-based eye-movement control during reading
title_short Linguistic processes do not beat visuo-motor constraints, but they modulate where the eyes move regardless of word boundaries: Evidence against top-down word-based eye-movement control during reading
title_sort linguistic processes do not beat visuo-motor constraints, but they modulate where the eyes move regardless of word boundaries: evidence against top-down word-based eye-movement control during reading
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6645505/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31329614
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219666
work_keys_str_mv AT albrenguesclaire linguisticprocessesdonotbeatvisuomotorconstraintsbuttheymodulatewheretheeyesmoveregardlessofwordboundariesevidenceagainsttopdownwordbasedeyemovementcontrolduringreading
AT lavignefrederic linguisticprocessesdonotbeatvisuomotorconstraintsbuttheymodulatewheretheeyesmoveregardlessofwordboundariesevidenceagainsttopdownwordbasedeyemovementcontrolduringreading
AT aguilarcarlos linguisticprocessesdonotbeatvisuomotorconstraintsbuttheymodulatewheretheeyesmoveregardlessofwordboundariesevidenceagainsttopdownwordbasedeyemovementcontrolduringreading
AT casteteric linguisticprocessesdonotbeatvisuomotorconstraintsbuttheymodulatewheretheeyesmoveregardlessofwordboundariesevidenceagainsttopdownwordbasedeyemovementcontrolduringreading
AT vitufrancoise linguisticprocessesdonotbeatvisuomotorconstraintsbuttheymodulatewheretheeyesmoveregardlessofwordboundariesevidenceagainsttopdownwordbasedeyemovementcontrolduringreading