An early effect of the parafoveal preview on post-saccadic processing of English words
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A key aspect of efficient visual processing is to use current and previous information to make predictions about what we will see next. In natural viewing, and when looking at words, there is typically an indication of forthcoming visual information from extrafoveal areas of the visual field before we make an eye movement to an object or word of interest. This "preview effect" has been studied for many years in the word reading literature and, more recently, in object perception. Here, we integrated methods from word recognition and object perception to investigate the timing of the preview on neural measures of word recognition. Through a combined use of EEG and eye-tracking, a group of multilingual participants took part in a gaze-contingent, single-shot saccade experiment in which words appeared in their parafoveal visual field. In valid preview trials, the same word was presented during the preview and after the saccade, while in the invalid condition, the saccade target was a number string that turned into a word during the saccade. As hypothesized, the valid preview greatly reduced the fixation-related evoked response. Interestingly, multivariate decoding analyses revealed much earlier preview effects than previously reported for words, and individual decoding performance correlated with participant reading scores. These results demonstrate that a parafoveal preview can influence relatively early aspects of post-saccadic word processing and help to resolve some discrepancies between the word and object literatures.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".