Limits...
An incremental boundary study on parafoveal preprocessing in children reading aloud: Parafoveal masks overestimate the preview benefit.

Marx C, Hawelka S, Schuster S, Hutzler F - J Cogn Psychol (Hove) (2015)

Bottom Line: Recent studies, however, suggested that the benefit estimate is inflated due to interference of the parafoveal masks, i.e., the masks inflict processing costs.This technique does not require a baseline condition, but makes it possible to determine whether a preview induces facilitation or interference.With the novel incremental boundary technique, in contrast, one can achieve an accurate estimate of the preview benefit.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Salzburg , Salzburg , Austria.

ABSTRACT

Parafoveal preprocessing is an important factor for efficient reading and, in eye-movement studies, is typically investigated by means of parafoveal masking: Valid previews are compared to instances in which masks prevent preprocessing. A long-held assumption was that parafoveal preprocessing, as assessed by this technique, only reflects facilitation (i.e., a preview benefit). Recent studies, however, suggested that the benefit estimate is inflated due to interference of the parafoveal masks, i.e., the masks inflict processing costs. With children from Grades 4 and 6, we administered the novel incremental priming technique. The technique manipulates the salience of the previews by systematically varying its perceptibility (i.e., by visually degrading the previews). This technique does not require a baseline condition, but makes it possible to determine whether a preview induces facilitation or interference. Our salience manipulation of valid previews revealed a preview benefit in the children of both Grades. For two commonly used parafoveal masks, we observed interference corroborating the notion that masks are not a proper baseline. With the novel incremental boundary technique, in contrast, one can achieve an accurate estimate of the preview benefit.

No MeSH data available.


The mean FFD and GD of the children from Grade 4 (upper panel) and Grade 6 in relation to the type and the salience of the parafoveal preview. For the purpose of illustration, we highlighted the areas under the lines for which planned comparisons (i.e., simple effects) revealed significant effects of the salience of the preview. The red (and solid line) shadings depict the effect of the parafoveal masks. The green (and dashed line) shadings depict the effects of the valid preview. SSDL, Same shape/different letter. [To view this figure in colour, please visit the online version of this Journal.]
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4487581&req=5

f0003: The mean FFD and GD of the children from Grade 4 (upper panel) and Grade 6 in relation to the type and the salience of the parafoveal preview. For the purpose of illustration, we highlighted the areas under the lines for which planned comparisons (i.e., simple effects) revealed significant effects of the salience of the preview. The red (and solid line) shadings depict the effect of the parafoveal masks. The green (and dashed line) shadings depict the effects of the valid preview. SSDL, Same shape/different letter. [To view this figure in colour, please visit the online version of this Journal.]

Mentions: The main findings of our preview by degradation manipulation on FFD and GD are depicted in Figure 3; the findings for the Grade-4 children are shown in the upper panel, those for the Grade-6 children in the lower panel. (Means and standard deviations are provided in Table 1A of the Appendix.) The Grade-6 children exhibited shorter FFD and GD than the Grade-4 children (note that the y-axes of the Figure are scaled differently for the two Grades). The ANOVAs revealed the respective main effects; FFD: F1(1, 52) = 10.6, F2(1, 178) = 52.7; GD: F1(1, 52) = 6.6, F2(1, 178) = 74.0, all ps < .001. Figure 2 further shows that the preview of masks elicited, on average, higher processing times than the valid previews. Accordingly, the main effects of type of preview were reliable; FFD: F1(2, 104) = 38.3, F2(2, 356) = 49.3, and GD: F1(2, 104) = 19.0, F2(2, 356) = 20.1, ps < .001. Furthermore, the interactions between type of preview and degree of salience were significant; FFD: F1(4, 208) =12.8, F2(4, 712) =11.3; GD: F1(4, 208) = 9.0, F2(4, 712) = 9.8, ps < .001. In the following we report the effects of the levels of salience separately for the valid preview condition and the parafoveal masks.


An incremental boundary study on parafoveal preprocessing in children reading aloud: Parafoveal masks overestimate the preview benefit.

Marx C, Hawelka S, Schuster S, Hutzler F - J Cogn Psychol (Hove) (2015)

The mean FFD and GD of the children from Grade 4 (upper panel) and Grade 6 in relation to the type and the salience of the parafoveal preview. For the purpose of illustration, we highlighted the areas under the lines for which planned comparisons (i.e., simple effects) revealed significant effects of the salience of the preview. The red (and solid line) shadings depict the effect of the parafoveal masks. The green (and dashed line) shadings depict the effects of the valid preview. SSDL, Same shape/different letter. [To view this figure in colour, please visit the online version of this Journal.]
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4487581&req=5

f0003: The mean FFD and GD of the children from Grade 4 (upper panel) and Grade 6 in relation to the type and the salience of the parafoveal preview. For the purpose of illustration, we highlighted the areas under the lines for which planned comparisons (i.e., simple effects) revealed significant effects of the salience of the preview. The red (and solid line) shadings depict the effect of the parafoveal masks. The green (and dashed line) shadings depict the effects of the valid preview. SSDL, Same shape/different letter. [To view this figure in colour, please visit the online version of this Journal.]
Mentions: The main findings of our preview by degradation manipulation on FFD and GD are depicted in Figure 3; the findings for the Grade-4 children are shown in the upper panel, those for the Grade-6 children in the lower panel. (Means and standard deviations are provided in Table 1A of the Appendix.) The Grade-6 children exhibited shorter FFD and GD than the Grade-4 children (note that the y-axes of the Figure are scaled differently for the two Grades). The ANOVAs revealed the respective main effects; FFD: F1(1, 52) = 10.6, F2(1, 178) = 52.7; GD: F1(1, 52) = 6.6, F2(1, 178) = 74.0, all ps < .001. Figure 2 further shows that the preview of masks elicited, on average, higher processing times than the valid previews. Accordingly, the main effects of type of preview were reliable; FFD: F1(2, 104) = 38.3, F2(2, 356) = 49.3, and GD: F1(2, 104) = 19.0, F2(2, 356) = 20.1, ps < .001. Furthermore, the interactions between type of preview and degree of salience were significant; FFD: F1(4, 208) =12.8, F2(4, 712) =11.3; GD: F1(4, 208) = 9.0, F2(4, 712) = 9.8, ps < .001. In the following we report the effects of the levels of salience separately for the valid preview condition and the parafoveal masks.

Bottom Line: Recent studies, however, suggested that the benefit estimate is inflated due to interference of the parafoveal masks, i.e., the masks inflict processing costs.This technique does not require a baseline condition, but makes it possible to determine whether a preview induces facilitation or interference.With the novel incremental boundary technique, in contrast, one can achieve an accurate estimate of the preview benefit.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Salzburg , Salzburg , Austria.

ABSTRACT

Parafoveal preprocessing is an important factor for efficient reading and, in eye-movement studies, is typically investigated by means of parafoveal masking: Valid previews are compared to instances in which masks prevent preprocessing. A long-held assumption was that parafoveal preprocessing, as assessed by this technique, only reflects facilitation (i.e., a preview benefit). Recent studies, however, suggested that the benefit estimate is inflated due to interference of the parafoveal masks, i.e., the masks inflict processing costs. With children from Grades 4 and 6, we administered the novel incremental priming technique. The technique manipulates the salience of the previews by systematically varying its perceptibility (i.e., by visually degrading the previews). This technique does not require a baseline condition, but makes it possible to determine whether a preview induces facilitation or interference. Our salience manipulation of valid previews revealed a preview benefit in the children of both Grades. For two commonly used parafoveal masks, we observed interference corroborating the notion that masks are not a proper baseline. With the novel incremental boundary technique, in contrast, one can achieve an accurate estimate of the preview benefit.

No MeSH data available.