This review has focused on plausibility preview effects because they contribute novel
evidence about the benefits and costs of parafoveal processing that highlight the interplay between multiple mechanisms. The consistent, robust effects of preview plausibility on the earliest eye-movements observed across multiple studies using different materials (Schotter & Jia, 2016; Veldre
& Andrews, 2016b, 2017, 2018a, 2018b; Yang et al., 2012; 2014) highlight four major issues that shed light on the role of parafoveal processing in online reading.
First, deep parafoveal processing, to the lexical or semantic level, occurs much more frequently than has typically been assumed (e.g., Schotter et al., 2012; Cutter et al., 2015). A number of methodological factors have contributed to previous failures to observe reliable
semantic preview effects, including the strength of the semantic similarity manipulation (Schotter, 2013; Veldre & Andrews, 2016a), the counteracting effects of orthographic mismatch, and reliance on averaged data which conflate different dimensions of variability between individuals (Veldre &
Andrews, 2016a, 2016b).
The second, more critical implication is that preview effects are sensitive not only to lexico-semantic attributes of parafoveal words or to their syntactic acceptability, but to their fit in the sentence context across both these dimensions. Early effects of contextual plausibility shed light on the dynamic interactions between lexical retrieval and the processes involved in constructing sentence/discourse representations (Kintsch, 1988). The early disruptions to eye movements, including skipping, caused by plausibility violations in the parafovea, and the distinct patterns of reanalysis observed in response to semantic and syntactic violations (Andrews & Veldre, 2018b) implicate rapid, incremental, word-by-word integration of new input with the developing representation of the sentence (Altmann & Mirkovic, 2009). When an implausible preview is a short, easy to process word, rapid postlexical integration failure may directly trigger re-analysis processes that influence first-pass reading, but the timecourse and information requirements of post-lexical integration make it unlikely that that this mechanism is the sole source of the plausibility preview effect (Veldre et al., submitted).
The third critical finding is the consistent evidence of plausibility effects on skipping of previews that were semantically and syntactically compatible relative to both semantic and syntactic violations. These skipping effects appear to demonstrate a genuine benefit for previews that fit the sentence context (Veldre & Andrews, 2017, 2018a, 2018b, 2018c). The sensitivity to both semantic and syntactic fit, combined with evidence of a plausibility preview effect even for sentences constrained to a highly predictable target (Veldre & Andrews, 2018a), supports Staub’s (2015) conclusion that a diffuse set of possible sentence continuations are activated. Such activation yields differences in processing difficulty between plausible and implausible previews that contribute to plausibility preview effects. Graded predictions about upcoming words may combine with orthographic information extracted from the parafovea to yield early plausibility benefits on skipping, or forced fixations on the target word. These early influences of plausibility
can result in comprehension errors when plausible previews are incorporated into sentence representations in place of the target (Schotter & Jia, 2016; Veldre & Andrews, 2017), or late regressions back to resolve lingering uncertainty about the correct identity of the target word (Schotter, et al., 2018) triggered by failures in sentence integration processes.
The fourth source of novel evidence highlighted in this review concerns how preview effects are modulated by individual differences. The most critical findings are that higher lexical proficiency was associated with early lexical competition from orthographically similar word neighbors (Veldre
& Andrews, 2015b), consistent with deeper parafoveal processing, but reduced influences of higher-order semantic and contextual information on preview effects (Veldre & Andrews, 2016a, 2016b). The resolution to this apparent paradox lies in the interplay between the efficiency of preview processing and trans-saccadic integration. The deeper foveal and parafoveal processing afforded by higher lexical proficiency increases the likelihood that sufficient processing of the preview will occur to trigger planning of a saccade out of the target word before it has been fixated, leading to a skip or a forced fixation. However, if completion of lexical processing of the preview results in retrieval of its orthographic representation, or enhances rapid extraction of information from the target once it is fixated, trans-saccadic integration mechanisms will yield orthographic conflict between the preview and target. This conflict terminates the saccade planned on the basis of the parafoveal preview information and eliminates the preview benefit arising from a plausible word (Veldre & Andrews, 2016a). According to this view, the benefits of semantic and contextual plausibility associated with superior reading ability are primarily due to mechanisms like those proposed to account for effects of preview difficulty. The opposite relationship of semantic and plausibility preview effects with spelling ability reflects costs due to sensitivity to discrepancies between the orthography of the preview and target that disrupt trans-saccadic integration. The net
preview effect shown by an individual, and its timecourse across early and late eye movement measures, depends on the relative contribution of these two mechanisms.
More broadly, the incremental, word-by-word processing demonstrated by readers’
sensitivity to the contextual plausibility of parafoveal words is consistent with a modular cognitive architecture in which the outcomes of independent word identification processes determine the extent and time-course of parafoveal processing (Andrews & Reichle, 2019), but individual differences in lexical quality determine exactly how parafoveal information affects oculomotor control. The detailed accounts of online reading provided by computational models of eye movements, like E-Z Reader and SWIFT, go a long way towards explaining how interactions between foveal and parafoveal processing contribute to the complex patterns of eye-movement behavior observed in online sentence reading. However, to provide a complete account of reading, these models need to be extended to specify how the information extracted from text is integrated and combined with long-term knowledge and inferential processes to construct meaning, and how these processes are modulated by individual differences in reading skill. Plausibility preview effects provide an important source of evidence that will contribute to such future developments.
References
Abbott, M. J., Angele, B., Ahn, Y. D., & Rayner, K. (2015). Skipping syntactically illegal the previews:
The role of predictability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 1703-1714.
Abbott, M. J., & Staub, A. (2015). The effect of plausibility on eye movements in reading: Testing E-Z Reader's null predictions. Journal of Memory and Language, 85, 76-87.
Altmann, G.T. & Mirkovic, J. (2009). Incrementality and prediction in human sentence processing.
Cognitive Science, 33, 583-609.
Andrews, S. (2006). All about words: A lexicalist perspective on reading. In S. Andrews (Ed.), From inkmarks to ideas: Current issues in lexical processing (pp. 318-348): Routledge.
Andrews, S. (2008). Lexical expertise and reading skill. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory (Vol. 49, pp. 247-281). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
Andrews, S. (2012). Individual differences in skilled visual word recognition and reading: The role of lexical quality. In J. S. Adelman (Ed.), Visual Word Recognition (Vol. 2, pp. 151-172). London:
Psychology Press.
Andrews, S. (2015). Individual differences among skilled readers: The role of lexical quality. In A.
Pollatsek & R. Treiman (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Reading (pp. 129-148): Oxford University Press.
Andrews, S. & Hersch, J. (2010). Lexical precision in skilled readers: Individual differences in masked neighbor priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139, 299-318.
Andrews, S. & Lo, S. (2012). Not all skilled readers have cracked the code: Individual differences in masked form priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 38, 152-163.
Andrews, S. & Lo, S. (2013). Is morphological priming stronger for transparent than opaque words? It depends on individual differences in spelling and vocabulary. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 279-296.
Andrews, S., & Reichle, E.D. (2019). The cognitive architecture of reading: The organization of an acquired skill. In P. Hagoort (Ed)., Human Language: From genes and brains to behaviour. MIT Press.
Angele, B., Laishley, A. E., Rayner, K., & Liversedge, S. P. (2014). The effect of high- and low-frequency previews and sentential fit on word skipping during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 1181-1203.
Angele, B., & Rayner, K. (2013). Processing the in the parafovea: Are articles skipped automatically?
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 649-662.
Ashby, J., Yang, J., Evans, K.H., & Rayner, K. (2012). Eye movements and the perceptual span in silent and oral reading. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 74, 634-640.
Balota, D. A., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (1985). The interaction of contextual constraints and parafoveal visual information in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 364-390.
Becker, W., & Jürgens, R. (1979). An analysis of the saccadic system by means of double step stimuli. Vision Research, 19, 967-983.
Blythe, H.I. & Joseph, H.L. (2011). Children’s eye movements during reading. In S.P. Liversedge, I.D.
Gilchrist, & S. Everling (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Eye Movements (pp. 643-662). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Blythe, H.U., Liversedge, S.P., Joseph, H.S., White, S.J. & Rayner, K. (2009). Visual information capture during reading for children and adults. Vision Research, 49, 1583-1591.
Brothers, T., Hoversten, L. J., & Traxler, M. J. (2017). Looking back on reading ahead: No evidence for lexical parafoveal-on-foveal effects. Journal of Memory and Language, 96, 9-22.
Brothers, T., & Traxler, M. J. (2016). Anticipating syntax during reading: Evidence from the boundary change paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 42, 1894-1906.
Brysbaert, M., Drieghe, D., & Vitu, F. (2005). Word skipping: Implications for theories of eye movement control in reading. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Cognitive Processes in Eye Guidance (pp. 53-77). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Chace, K.H., Rayner, K., Well, A.D. (2005). Eye movements and phonological parafoveal preview:
Effects of reading skill. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 209-217.
Choi, W., Lowder, M. W., Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. M. (2015). Individual differences in the perceptual span during reading: Evidence from the moving window technique. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77, 2463-2475.
Clifton, C.Jr., Staub, A., & Rayner, K. (2007). Eye movements in reading words and sentences. In R.
van Gompel (Ed.), Eye movements: A window on word recognition and reading aloud (pp.
341-371). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
Cutter, M.G., Drieghe, D., & Liversedge, S. (2015). How is information integrated across fixations in reading? In A. Pollatsek & R. Treiman (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Reading (pp. 129-148):
Oxford University Press.
Davis, C. J. & Lupker, S. J. (2006). Masked inhibitory priming in English: Evidence for lexical inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 668-687.
Drieghe, D. (2011). Parafoveal-on-foveal effects in eye movements during reading. In S.P.
Liversedge, I.D. Gilchrist, & S. Everling (Eds.), Eye movement handbook (pp. 839-855).
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Drieghe, D., Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2005). Eye movements and word skipping during reading revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 954-969.
Engbert, R., Nuthmann, A., Richter, E. M., & Kliegl, R. (2005). SWIFT: A dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. Psychological Review, 112, 777-813.
Findlay, J. M., & Walker, R. (1999). How are saccades generated? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 706-713.
Forster, K. I., & Davis, C. (1984). Repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexical access.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 10, 680-686.
Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance: Vol 12. The psychology of reading. (pp. 559-586). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Frisson, S., Harvey, D.R., & Staub, A. (2017). No prediction error cost in reading: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 95, 200-214.
Henderson, J. M., & Ferreira, F. (1990). Effects of foveal processing difficulty on the perceptual span in reading: Implications for attention and eye movement control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 417-429.
Hohenstein, S., & Kliegl, R. (2014). Semantic preview benefit during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 166-190.
Johnson, R.L., & Dunne, M.D. (2012). Parafoveal processing of transposed-letter words and nonwords: Evidence against parafoveal lexical activation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 191-212.
Inhoff, A.W. & Liu, W. (1998). The perceptual span during the reading of Chinese sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 191-20-34.
Johnson, R.L., Oehrlein, E.C., & Roche, W.L. (2018). Predictability and parafoveal preview effects in the developing reader: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Human Perception and Performance, 44, 973-991.
Jordan, T.T., Almabruk, A.A., Gadalla, E., McGowan, V.A., White, S.J., Abedipour, L. & Paterson, K.B.
(2014). Reading direction and the central perceptual span: Evidence from Arabic and English. Psychonomic , Bulletin & Review, 21, 505-511.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
Kliegl, R., Hohenstein, S., Yan, M., & MacDonald, S.A. (2013). How preview space/time translates into preview cost/benefit for fixation durations during reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 581-600.
Kutas, M., DeLong, K.A. & Smith, N.J. (2011). A look around what lies ahead: Prediction and
predictability in language processing. In M. Bar (Ed.), Predictions in the Brain: Using our Past to Generate a Future (pp. 190-207). Oxford University Press.
Laubrock, J., & Hohenstein, S. (2012). Orthographic consistency and parafoveal preview benefit: A resource-sharing account of language differences in processing of phonological and
semantic codes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 292-293.
Legge, G.E., Cheung, S.-H., Yu, D., Chung, S.T.L., Lee. H.-W. & Owns, D.P. (2007). The case for the visual span as a sensory bottleneck in reading. Journal of Vision, 7, 1-19.
Li, N., Wang, S., Mo, L., & Kliegl, R. (2018). Contextual constraint and preview time modulate the semantic preview effect: Evidence from Chinese sentence reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 241-249.
Mancheva, L, Reichle, E.D., Lemaire, B., Valdois, S., Ecalle, J. & Guerin-Dugue, A. (2015). An analysis of reading skill development using E-Z Reader. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27, 657-676.
Matsuki, K., Chow, T., Hare, M., Elman, J. L., Scheepers, C., & McRae, K. (2011). Event-based plausibility immediately influences on-line language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 37, 913-934.
McConkie, G. W., & Rayner, K. (1975). The span of the effective stimulus during a fixation in reading. Perception & Psychophysics, 17, 578-586.
McConkie, G. W., & Rayner, K. (1976). Asymmetry of the perceptual span in reading. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 8, 365-368.
McConkie, G.W., & Zola, D. (1979). Is visual information integrated across successive fixations in reading? Perception & Psychophysics, 25, 221-224.
Miellet, S., O'Donnell, P. J., & Sereno, S. C. (2009). Parafoveal magnification: Visual acuity does not modulate the perceptual span in reading. Psychological Science, 20, 721-728.
Morrison, R. E. (1984). Manipulation of stimulus onset delay in reading: Evidence for parallel programming of saccades. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 667-682.
Pagan, A., Blythe, H., & Liversedge, S.P. (2016). Parafoveal preprocessing of word initial trigrams during reading in adults and children. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 42, 411-432.
Pelli, D.G., Tillman, K.A., Freeman, J., Su, M., Berger, T.D., & Majaj, N.J. (2007). Crowding and eccentricity determine reading rate. Journal of Vision, 7, 1-36.
Perfetti, C. A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357-383.
Pollatsek, A., Bolozky, S., Well, A. D., & Rayner, K. (1981). Asymmetries in the perceptual span for Israeli readers. Brain and Language, 14, 174-180.
Rayner, K. (1975). The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 65-81.
Rayner, K. (1986). Eye movements and perceptual span in beginning and skilled readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 41, 211-236.
Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search.
The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1457-1506.
Rayner, K. (2014). The gaze-contingent moving window in reading: Development and review. Visual Cognition, 22, 242-258.
Rayner, K., Balota, D. A., & Pollatsek, A. (1986). Against parafoveal semantic preprocessing during eye fixations in reading. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40, 473-483.
Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1981). Eye movement control during reading: Evidence for direct control. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33, 351-373.
Rayner, K., & Schotter, E. R. (2014). Semantic preview benefit in reading English: The effect of initial letter capitalization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 40, 1617-1628.
Rayner, K., Schotter, E. R., & Drieghe, D. (2014). Lack of semantic parafoveal preview benefit in reading revisited. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 1067-1072.
Rayner. K., Slattery, T.J., & Belanger, N.N. (2010). Eye movements, the perceptual span and reading speed. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 834-839.
Rayner, K., Warren, T., Juhasz, B., & Reichle, E.D. (2004). The effect of plausibility on eye movements in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 1290-1301.
Rayner, K., Well, A. D., & Pollatsek, A. (1980). Asymmetry of the effective visual field in reading.
Perception & Psychophysics, 27, 537-544.
Reichle, E. D. (2015). Computational models of reading: A primer. Language and Linguistics Compass, 9, 271-284.
Reichle, E.D., Liversedge, S.P., Drieghe, D., Blythe, H.I., Joseph, H.S., White, S., & Rayner, K. (2013).
Using E-Z Reader to examine the concurrent development of eye-movement control and reading skill. Developmental Review, 33, 110-149.
Reichle, E. D., Pollatsek, A., Fisher, D. L., & Rayner, K. (1998). Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. Psychological Review, 105, 125-157.
Reichle, E. D., & Reingold, E. M. (2013). Neurophysiological constraints on the eye-mind link.
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 1-6.
Reingold, E. M., Reichle, E. D., Glaholt, M. G., & Sheridan, H. (2012). Direct lexical control of eye movements in reading: Evidence from a survival analysis of fixation durations. Cognitive Psychology, 65, 177-206.
Reichle, E.D., Warren, T., & McConnell, K. (2009). Using E-Z Reader to model the effects of higher level language processing on eye movements during reading. Psychonomic Bulletin &
Review, 16, 1-21.
Risse, S. (2014). Effects of visual span on reading speed and parafoveal processing in eye movements during sentence reading. Journal of Vision, 14, 1-13.
Risse, S., & Kliegl, R. (2014). Dissociating preview validity and preview difficulty in parafoveal processing of word n+1 during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 653-667.
Risse, S., & Seelig, S. (2018). Stable preview difficulty effects in reading with an improved variant of the boundary paradigm. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, in press.
Schotter, E. R. (2013). Synonyms provide semantic preview benefit in English. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 619-633.
Schotter, E.R. (in press). Reading ahead by hedging our bets on seeing the future: Eye tracking and electrophysiology evidence for parafoveal lexical processing and saccadic control by partial word recognition. Psychology of Learning and Motivation.
Schotter, E. R., Angele, B., & Rayner, K. (2012). Parafoveal processing in reading. Attention, Perception and Psychophysics, 74, 5-35.
Schotter, E. R., & Jia, A. (2016). Semantic and plausibility preview benefit effects in English:
Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42, 1839-1866.
Schotter, E. R., Reichle, E. D., & Rayner, K. (2014). Rethinking parafoveal processing in reading:
Serial-attention models can explain semantic preview benefit and N+ 2 preview effects.
Visual Cognition, 22, 309-333.
Schotter, E. R., Lee, M., Reiderman, M., & Rayner, K. (2015). The effect of contextual constraint on parafoveal processing in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 83, 118-139.
Schotter, E. R., & Leinenger, M. (2016). Reversed preview benefit effects: Forced fixations
emphasize the importance of parafoveal vision for efficient reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42, 2039-2067.
Schotter, E. R., Leinenger, M., & von der Malsburg, T. (2018). When your mind skips what your eyes fixate: How forced fixations lead to comprehension illusions in reading. Psychonomic
Bulletin & Review, 25, 1884-1890.
Slattery, T.J., & Yates, M. (2018). Word skipping: Effects of word length, predictability, spelling and reading skill. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 250-259.
Snell, J., Meeter, M., & Grainger, J. (2017). Evidence for simultaneous syntactic processing of multiple words during reading. PLoS One, 12, e0173720.
Staub, A. (2011). Word recognition and syntactic attachment in reading: Evidence for a staged architecture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 407-433.
Staub, A. (2015). The effect of lexical predictability on eye movements in reading: Critical review and theoretical interpretation. Language and Linguistics Compass, 9, 311-327.
Tsai, J.-L., Kliegl, R., & Yan, M. (2012). Parafoveal semantic information extraction in traditional Chinese reading. Acta Psychologica, 141, 17-23.
Vasilev, M. R., & Angele, B. (2017). Parafoveal preview effects from word N + 1 and word N + 2 during reading: A critical review and Bayesian meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 666-689.
Veldre, A. & Andrews, S. (2014). Lexical quality and eye movements: Individual differences in the perceptual span of skilled adult readers. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 703-727.
Veldre, A. & Andrews, S. (2015a). Parafoveal lexical activation depends on skilled reading proficiency.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 41, 586-595.
Veldre, A. & Andrews, S. (2015b). Parafoveal lexical activation is modulated by the precision of skilled readers’ lexical representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41, 219-232.
Veldre, A., & Andrews, S. (2016a). Semantic preview benefit in English: Individual differences in the extraction and use of parafoveal semantic information. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42, 837-854.
Veldre, A., & Andrews, S. (2016b). Is semantic preview benefit due to relatedness or plausibility?
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42, 939-952.
Veldre, A., & Andrews, S. (2017). Parafoveal preview benefit in sentence reading: Independent effects of plausibility and orthographic relatedness. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 519-528.
Veldre, A., & Andrews, S. (2018a). Beyond cloze probability: Parafoveal processing of semantic and syntactic information during reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 100, 1-17.
Veldre, A., & Andrews, S. (2018b). How does foveal processing difficulty affect parafoveal processing during reading? Journal of Memory and Language, 103, 74-90.
Veldre, A., & Andrews, S. (2018c). Parafoveal preview effects depend on both preview plausibility and target predictability. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 64-74.
Veldre, A., Drieghe, D., & Andrews, S. (2017). Spelling Ability Selectively Predicts the Magnitude of Disruption in Unspaced Text Reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43, 1612-1628.
Veldre, A., Reichle, E.D., Wong, R., & Andrews, S. (submitted). The effect of contextual plausibility on word skipping during reading.
Vorstius, C., Radach, R., & Lonigan, C.J. (2014). Eye movements in developing readers: A comparison of silent and oral sentence reading. Visual Cognition, 22, 458-485.
White, S. J., Rayner, K., & Liversedge, S. P. (2005). The influence of parafoveal word length and contextual constraint on fixation durations and word skipping in reading. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12, 466-471.
Williams, C.C., Perea, M., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (2006). Previewing the neighbourhood: The role of orthographic neighbors as parafoveal previews in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Human Perception and Performance, 32, 1072-1082.
Yan, M., Richter, E. M., Shu, H., & Kliegl, R. (2009). Chinese readers extract semantic information from parafoveal words during reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 561-566.
Yang, J., Li, Wang, S., Tong, X., & Rayner, K. (2012). Semantic and plausibility effects on preview
Yang, J., Li, Wang, S., Tong, X., & Rayner, K. (2012). Semantic and plausibility effects on preview