Extraction of linguistic information from successive words during reading: Evidence for spatially distributed lexical processing.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two experiments examined whether word recognition progressed from one word to the next during reading, as maintained by sequential attention shift models such as the E-Z Reader model. The boundary technique was used to control the visibility of to-be-identified short target words, so that they were either previewed in the parafovea or masked. The eyes skipped a masked target on more than a quarter of the trials, and the following fixation must have been mislocated, if word recognition and saccade targeting progressed from one word to the next. Readers responded to the skipping parafoveally masked target words with relatively long viewing duration for the following posttarget word or with corrective saccades that returned the eyes from the posttarget word to the target. Experiment 2 manipulated the time-line of posttarget onset after target skipping, so that the posttarget word was either visible immediately upon fixation or after a short delay. The delay influenced posttarget viewing even when attention should have been focused at the target location according to E-Z Reader 10 simulations. These findings favor theoretical conceptions according to which lexical processing can encompass more than one word at a time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".