Do Readers Integrate Phonological Codes Across Saccades? A Bayesian Meta-Analysis and a Survey of the Unpublished Literature
References
- Baayen, H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
- Balota, D. A., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (1985). The interaction of contextual constraints and parafoveal visual information in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 17(3), 364–390. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0285(85)90013-1
- Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
- * Barrington, R. S. (2018). Understandig dyslexia by measuring eye-movements during reading (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Bournemouth University.
- Bates, D. M., Machler, M., Bolker, B. M., & Walker, S. C. (2014). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
- * Bélanger, N. N., Mayberry, R. I., & Rayner, K. (2013). Orthographic and phonological preview benefits: Parafoveal processing in skilled and less-skilled deaf readers. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(11), 2237–2252. DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2013.780085
- * Blythe, H. I., Dickins, J. H., Kennedy, C. R., & Liversedge, S. P. (2018). Phonological processing during silent reading in teenagers who are deaf/hard of hearing: An eye movement investigation. Developmental Science, 21(5),
e12643 . DOI: 10.1111/desc.12643 - Borenstein, M. (2009).
Effect sizes for continuous data . In H. M. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 221–235). New York, USA: Russel Sage Foundation. - 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(12), 1894–1906. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000257
- Brysbaert, M. (2019). How many participants do we have to include in properly powered experiments? A tutorial of power analysis with reference tables. Journal of Cognition, 2(1), 1–38. DOI: 10.5334/joc.72
- Brysbaert, M., & Stevens, M. (2018). Power analysis and effect size in mixed effects models: A Tutorial. Journal of Cognition, 1(1), 1–20. DOI: 10.5334/joc.10
- * Chace, K. H., Rayner, K., & Well, A. D. (2005). Eye movements and phonological parafoveal preview: Effects of reading skill. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 59(3), 209–217. DOI: 10.1037/h0087476
- Chen, M. J. (1996). An overview of the characteristics of the Chinese writing system. Asia Pacific Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing, 1(1), 43–54. DOI: 10.1179/136132896805577568
- * Choi, W., & Gordon, P. C. (2014). Word skipping during sentence reading: Effects of lexicality on parafoveal processing. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 76(1), 201–213. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-013-0494-1
- Clifton, C.,
Jr. (2015).The role of phonology in silent reading: A selective review . In L. Frazier, & E. Gibson (Eds.), Explicit and implicit prosody in sentence processing: Studies in honor of Janet Fodor (pp. 161–176). New York: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-12961-7_9 - Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108(1), 204–256. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.108.1.204
- Cutter, M. G., Drieghe, D., & Liversedge, S. P. (2015).
How is information integrated across fixations in reading? In A. Pollatsek, & R. Treiman (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Reading. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199324576.013.11 - Deutsch, A., Frost, R., Pelleg, S., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (2003). Early morphological effects in reading: Evidence from parafoveal preview benefit in Hebrew. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(2), 415–422. DOI: 10.3758/BF03196500
- Deutsch, A., Frost, R., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (2005). Morphological parafoveal preview benefit effects in reading: Evidence from Hebrew. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20(1–2), 341–371. DOI: 10.1080/01690960444000115
- * Drieghe, D., Veldre, A., & Andrews, S. (2016). Unpublished data.
- Duanmu, S. (2006).
Chinese (Mandarin): Phonology . In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language & linguistics (pp. 351–355). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. DOI: 10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00096-1 - Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 315(7109), 629–634. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
- Engbert, R., Longtin, A., & Kliegl, R. (2002). A dynamical model of saccade generation in reading based on spatially distributed lexical processing. Vision Research, 42(5), 621–636. DOI: 10.1016/S0042-6989(01)00301-7
- Engbert, R., Nuthmann, A., Richter, E. M., & Kliegl, R. (2005). SWIFT: A dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. Psychological Review, 112(4), 777–813. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.112.4.777
- Franco, A., Malhotra, N., & Simonovits, G. (2014). Publication bias in the social sciences: Unlocking the file drawer. Science, 345(6203), 1502–1505. DOI: 10.1126/science.1255484
- Frost, R. (1998). Toward a strong phonological theory of visual word recognition: True issues and false trails. Psychological Bulletin, 123(1), 71–99. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.123.1.71
- Gelman, A., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statistical Science, 7(4), 457–472. DOI: 10.1214/ss/1177011136
- Gelman, A., & Stern, H. (2006). The difference between “significant” and “not significant” is not itself statistically significant. The American Statistician, 60(4), 328–331. DOI: 10.1198/000313006X152649
- Gilmore, R. O., Kennedy, J. L., & Adolph, K. E. (2018). Practical solutions for sharing data and materials from psychological research. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(1), 121–130. DOI: 10.1177/2515245917746500
- Greenhouse, J. B., & Iyengar, S. (2009).
Sensitivity analysis and diagnostics . In H. M. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (pp. 418–434). New York, USA: Russell Sage Foundation. - Green, P., & Macleod, C. J. (2016). SIMR: An R package for power analysis of generalized linear mixed models by simulation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7(4), 493–498. DOI: 10.1111/2041-210X.12504
- Halsey, L. G., Curran-everett, D., Vowler, S. L., & Drummond, G. B. (2015). The fickle P value generates irreproducible results. Nature Methods, 12(3), 179–185. DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.3288
- Higgins, J. P. T., & Spiegelhalter, D. J. (2002). Being sceptical about meta-analyses: A Bayesian perspective on magnesium trials in myocardial infarction. International Journal of Epidemiology, 31(1), 96–104. DOI: 10.1093/ije/31.1.96
- Hohenstein, S., & Kliegl, R. (2014). Semantic preview benefit during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 40(1), 166–190. DOI: 10.1037/a0033670
- Honorof, D. N., & Feldman, L. (2004).
The Chinese chracter in psycholinguistic research: Form, structure, and the reader . In P. Li, L. H. Tan, E. Bates, & O. J.-L. Tzeng (Eds.), Handbook of East Asian psycholinguistics (pp. 195–208). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511550751.019 - Jäger, L. A., Engelmann, F., & Vasishth, S. (2017). Similarity-based interference in sentence comprehension: Literature review and Bayesian meta-analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 316–339. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.004
- Jin, Z. C., Zhou, X. H., & He, J. (2015). Statistical methods for dealing with publication bias in meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 34(2), 343–360. DOI: 10.1002/sim.6342
- Johnson, R. L., Perea, M., & Rayner, K. (2007). Transposed-letter effects in reading: Evidence from eye movements and parafoveal preview. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 33(1), 209–229. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.33.1.209
- Jouravlev, O., & Jared, D. (2018). Cross-script orthographic and phonological preview benefits. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(1), 11–19. DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2016.1226906
- Kambe, G. (2004). Parafoveal processing of prefixed words during eye fixations in reading: Evidence against morphological influences on parafoveal preprocessing. Perception and Psychophysics, 66(2), 279–292. DOI: 10.3758/BF03194879
- Kass, R. E., Carlin, B. P., Gelman, A., Neal, R. M., & Carlin, P. B. P. (1998). Markov Chain Monte Carlo in practice: A roundtable discussion. The American Statistician, 52(2), 93–100. DOI: 10.1198/000313007X188252
- Kim, Y.-S., Radach, R., & Vorstius, C. (2011). Eye movements and parafoveal processing during reading in Korean. Reading and Writing, 25(5), 1053–1078. DOI: 10.1007/s11145-011-9349-0
- Kruschke, J. K. (2015). Doing Bayesian data analysis: A tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan (2nd ed.). Burlington, MA: Academic Press/Elsevier. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-405888-0.00008-8
- Lee, Y. A., Kim, J. O., Binder, K. S., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (1999). Activation of phonological codes during eye fixations in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(4), 948–964. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.25.4.948
- Leinenger, M. (2014). Phonological coding during reading. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1534–1555. DOI: 10.1037/a0037830
- * Leinenger, M. (2018). Survival analyses reveal how early phonological processing affects eye movements during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(7), 1316–1344. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000648
- Li, X., Zang, C., Liversedge, S. P., & Pollatsek, A. (2015).
The role of words in Chinese reading . In A. Pollatsek, & R. Treiman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of reading (pp. 232–244). New York, USA: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199324576.013.14 - * Liu, W., Inhoff, A. W., Ye, Y., & Wu, C. (2002). Use of parafoveally visible characters during the reading of Chinese sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(5), 1213–1227. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.28.5.1213
- Lukatela, G., & Turvey, M. T. (1994a). Visual lexical access is initially phonological: 1. Evidence from associative priming by words, homophones, and pseudohomophones. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123(2), 107–108. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.123.2.107
- Lukatela, G., & Turvey, M. T. (1994b). Visual lexical access is initially phonological: 2. Evidence from phonological priming by homophones and pseudohomophones. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123(4), 331–353. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.123.4.331
- * Luo, J., Wu, Y., & Jiao, R. (2018). Parafoveal processing in Chinese sentence reading: Early extraction of radical level phonology. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(August), 1–10. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01605
- Marsman, M., Schönbrodt, F. D., Morey, R. D., Yao, Y., Gelman, A., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2017). A Bayesian bird’s eye view of ‘Replications of important results in social psychology.’ Royal Society Open Science, 4(1), 160426. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.160426
- Martone, M. E., Garcia-Castro, A., & Vandenbos, G. R. (2018). Data sharing in psychology. American Psychologist, 73(2), 111–125. DOI: 10.1037/amp0000242
- * Miellet, S., & Sparrow, L. (2004). Phonological codes are assembled before word fixation: Evidence from boundary paradigm in sentence reading. Brain and Language, 90(1–3), 299–310. DOI: 10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00442-5
- Milledge, S. V., & Blythe, H. I. (2019). The changing role of phonology in reading development. Vision, 3(2), 23. DOI: 10.3390/vision3020023
- Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., Antes, G., Atkins, D., … Tugwell, P. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), 1–6. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
- Morey, R. D., Hoekstra, R., Rouder, J. N., Lee, M. D., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2016). The fallacy of placing confidence in confidence intervals. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 23(1), 103–123. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-015-0947-8
- * Murray, W. S., & Flynn, J. (2005). Unpublished data.
- Nicenboim, B., Roettger, T. B., & Vasishth, S. (2018). Using meta-analysis for evidence synthesis: The case of incomplete neutralization in German. Journal of Phonetics, 70, 39–55. DOI: 10.1016/j.wocn.2018.06.001
- Nicenboim, B., & Vasishth, S. (2016). Statistical methods for linguistic research: Foundational Ideas—Part II. Linguistics and Language Compass, 10(11), 591–613. DOI: 10.1111/lnc3.12207
- * Pan, J., Laubrock, J., & Yan, M. (2016). Parafoveal processing in silent and oral reading: Reading mode influences the relative weighting of phonological and semantic information in Chinese. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(8), 1257–1273. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000242
- Perry, C., Ziegler, J. C., & Zorzi, M. (2007). Nested incremental modeling in the development of computational theories: The CDP+ model of reading aloud. Psychological Review, 114(2), 273–315. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.114.2.273
- Plummer, M. (2003). JAGS: A program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling. In Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on distributed statistical computing (p. 125).
Technische Universität at Wien . - * Plummer, P. (2015). The influence of contextual constraint on word recognition during reading. University of California, San Diego.
- * Pollatsek, A., Lesch, M., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1992). Phonological codes are used in integrating information across saccades in word identification and reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(1), 148–162. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.18.1.148
- Pollatsek, A., Reichle, E. D., & Rayner, K. (2006). Tests of the E-Z Reader model: Exploring the interface between cognition and eye-movement control. Cognitive Psychology, 52(1), 1–56. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.06.001
- R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing.
- Rastle, K., & Brysbaert, M. (2006). Masked phonological priming effects in English: Are they real? Do they matter? Cognitive Psychology, 53(2), 97–145. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.01.002
- Rayner, K. (1975). The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 81(7), 65–81. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0285(75)90005-5
- Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372
- Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1457–1506. DOI: 10.1080/17470210902816461
- Rayner, K., Balota, D. A., & Pollatsek, A. (1986). Against parafoveal semantic preprocessing during eye fixations in reading. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 40(4), 473–483. DOI: 10.1037/h0080111
- Rayner, K., & Reingold, E. M. (2015). Evidence for direct cognitive control of fixation durations during reading. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 107–112. DOI: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2014.10.008
- Rayner, K., Schotter, E. R., & Drieghe, D. (2014). Lack of semantic parafoveal preview benefit in reading revisited. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 21(4), 1067–1072. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-014-0582-9
- Rayner, K., White, S. J., Kambe, G., Miller, B., & Liversedge, S. P. (2003).
On the processing of meaning from parafoveal vision during eye fixations in reading . In J. Hyönä, R. Radach, & H. Deubel (Eds.), The mind’s eye: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research (pp. 213–234). Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI: 10.1016/B978-044451020-4/50013-X - Reichle, E. D., Pollatsek, A., Fisher, D. L., & Rayner, K. (1998). Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. Psychological Review, 105(1), 125–157. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.105.1.125
- Reichle, E. D., Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2003). The E-Z reader model of eye-movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26(4), 445–476. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X03430100
- Reichle, E. D., & Reingold, E. M. (2013). Neurophysiological constraints on the eye-mind link. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7(July), 361. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00361
- 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), 1–21. DOI: 10.3758/PBR.16.1.1
- Reilly, R. G., & Radach, R. (2003).
Foundations of an interactive activation model of eye movement control in reading . In J. Hyönä, R. Radach, & H. Deubel (Eds.), The Mind’s Eye (pp. 429–455). North Holland: Elsevier. DOI: 10.1016/B978-044451020-4/50024-4 - Reilly, R. G., & Radach, R. (2006). Some empirical tests of an interactive activation model of eye movement control in reading. Cognitive Systems Research, 7(1), 34–55. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogsys.2005.07.006
- Risse, S., Hohenstein, S., Kliegl, R., & Engbert, R. (2014). A theoretical analysis of the perceptual span based on SWIFT simulations of the n + 2 boundary paradigm. Visual Cognition, 22(3–4), 283–308. DOI: 10.1080/13506285.2014.881444
- Risse, S., & Kliegl, R. (2012). Evidence for delayed parafoveal-on-foveal effects from word n + 2 in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(4), 1026–1042. DOI: 10.1037/a0027735
- 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(2), 653–668. DOI: 10.1037/a0034997
- Risse, S., & Seelig, S. (2019). Stable preview difficulty effects in reading with an improved variant of the boundary paradigm. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,
174702181881999 . DOI: 10.1177/1747021818819990 - Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638–641. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638
- Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (2005).
Publication bias in meta-analysis . In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments (pp. 1–7). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/0470870168.ch1 - Rouder, J. N., & Morey, R. D. (2011). A Bayes factor meta-analysis of Bem’s ESP claim. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 18(4), 682–689. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-011-0088-7
- Rouder, J. N., Morey, R. D., & Province, J. M. (2013). A Bayes Factor meta-analysis of recent extrasensory perception experiments: Comment on Storm, Tressoldi, and Di Risio (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 139(1), 241–247. DOI: 10.1037/a0029008
- Schad, D. J., & Engbert, R. (2012). The zoom lens of attention: Simulating shuffled versus normal text reading using the SWIFT model. Visual Cognition, 20(4–5), 391–421. DOI: 10.1080/13506285.2012.670143
- Schmid, C. H., & Mengersen, K. (2013).
Bayesian meta-analysis . In J. Koricheva, J. Gurevitch, & K. Mengersen (Eds.), The handbook of meta-analysis in ecology and evolution (pp. 145–173). Princeton, USA: Princeton University Press. DOI: 10.1515/9781400846184-013 - Schotter, E. R. (2013). Synonyms provide semantic preview benefit in English. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(4), 619–633. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2013.09.002
- Schotter, E. R., Angele, B., & Rayner, K. (2012). Parafoveal processing in reading. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 74(1), 5–35. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-011-0219-2
- 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(12), 1839–1866. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000281
- 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(12), 2039–2067. DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000270
- Schotter, E. R., Leinenger, M., & von der Malsburg, T. (2017). When your mind skips what your eyes fixate: How forced fixations lead to comprehension illusions in reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-017-1356-y
- 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(3–4), 309–333. DOI: 10.1080/13506285.2013.873508
- Schotter, E. R., von der Malsburg, T., & Leinenger, M. (2019). Forced fixations, trans-saccadic integration, and word recognition: Evidence for a hybrid mechanism of saccade triggering in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 45(4), 677–688. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000617
- Seelig, S. A., Rabe, M. M., Malem-Shinitski, N., Risse, S., Reich, S., & Engbert, R. (2019). Bayesian parameter estimation for the SWIFT model of eye-movement control during reading. DOI: 10.32470/CCN.2019.1369-0
- Shu, H. (2003). Chinese writing system and learning to read. International Journal of Psychology, 38(5), 274–285. DOI: 10.1080/00207590344000060
- Snell, J., Meeter, M., & Grainger, J. (2017). Evidence for simultaneous syntactic processing of multiple words during reading. PLoS ONE, 12(3), 1–17. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173720
- Snell, J., van Leipsig, S., Grainger, J., & Meeter, M. (2018). OB1-reader: A model of word recognition and eye movements in text reading. Psychological Review, 125(6), 969–984. DOI: 10.1037/rev0000119
- Snell, J., Vitu, F., & Grainger, J. (2017). Integration of parafoveal orthographic information during foveal word reading: Beyond the sub-lexical level? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(10), 1984–1996. DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2016.1217247
- Sterne, J. A. C., Sutton, A. J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Terrin, N., Jones, D. R., Lau, J., … Higgins, J. P. T. (2011). Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ, 343(7818), 1–8. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d4002
- Stoops, A., & Christianson, K. (2017). Parafoveal processing of inflectional morphology on Russian nouns. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 29(6), 653–669. DOI: 10.1080/20445911.2017.1310109
- Sutton, A. J., & Abrams, K. R. (2001). Bayesian methods in meta-analysis and evidence synthesis. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 10(4), 277–303. DOI: 10.1191/096228001678227794
- Szalma, J. L., & Hancock, P. A. (2011). Noise effects on human performance: A meta-analytic synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 682–707. DOI: 10.1037/a0023987
- Thompson, S. G., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2002). How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Statistics in Medicine, 21(11), 1559–1573. DOI: 10.1002/sim.1187
- * Tiffin-Richards, S. P., & Schroeder, S. (2015). Children’s and adults’ parafoveal processes in German: Phonological and orthographic effects. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27(5), 531–548. DOI: 10.1080/20445911.2014.999076
- * Tsai, J. L., Kliegl, R., & Yan, M. (2012). Parafoveal semantic information extraction in traditional Chinese reading. Acta Psychologica, 141(1), 17–23. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.06.004
- * Tsai, J. L., Lee, C. Y., Tzeng, O. J. L., Hung, D. L., & Yen, N. S. (2004). Use of phonological codes for Chinese characters: Evidence from processing of parafoveal preview when reading sentences. Brain and Language, 91(2), 235–244. DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2004.02.005
- Tsang, Y.-K., & Chen, H.-C. (2012). Eye movement control in reading: Logographic Chinese versus alphabetic scripts. PsyCh Journal, 1(2), 128–142. DOI: 10.1002/pchj.10
- Vankov, I., Bowers, J., & Munafò, M. R. (2014). On the persistence of low power in psychological science. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006), 67(5), 1037–1040. DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2014.885986
- Vanpaemel, W., Vermorgen, M., Deriemaecker, L., & Storms, G. (2015). Are we wasting a good crisis? The availability of psychological research data after the storm. Collabra, 1(1), 1–5. DOI: 10.1525/collabra.13
- 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(3), 666–689. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-016-1147-x
- * Vasilev, M. R., Yates, M. A., Prueitt, E., & Slattery, T. J. (2019). Unpublished data.
- Vasishth, S., Chen, Z., Li, Q., & Guo, G. (2013). Processing Chinese relative clauses: Evidence for the subject-relative advantage. PLoS One, 8(10), 1–15. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0077006
- Vasishth, S., Mertzen, D., Jäger, L. A., & Gelman, A. (2018). The statistical significance filter leads to overoptimistic expectations of replicability. Journal of Memory and Language, 103(July), 151–175. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2018.07.004
- 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(4), 703–727. DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2013.826258
- Veldre, A., & Andrews, S. (2015a). Parafoveal lexical activation depends on skilled reading proficiency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 41(2), 586–595. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000039
- Veldre, A., & Andrews, S. (2015b). Parafoveal preview benefit is modulated by the precision of skilled readers’ lexical representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(1), 219–232. DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000017
- Veldre, A., & Andrews, S. (2016a). Is semantic preview benefit due to relatedness or plausibility? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(7), 939–952. DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000200
- Veldre, A., & Andrews, S. (2016b). 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(6), 837–854. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000212
- Veldre, A., & Andrews, S. (2018). Beyond cloze probability: Parafoveal processing of semantic and syntactic information during reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 100, 1–17. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2017.12.002
- Verstaen, A., Humphreys, G. W., & Olson, A. (1995). Are phonemic effects in backward masking evidence for automatic prelexical phonemic activation in visual word recognition? Journal of Memory and Language, 34(3), 335–356. DOI: 10.1006/jmla.1995.1015
- Wang, M., & Yang, C. L. (2007).
Learning to read Chinese: Cognitive consequences of cross-language and writing system differences . In K. Koda, & A. M. Zehler (Eds.), Learning to read across languages: Cross-linguistic relationships in first- and second-language literacy development (vol. 3, pp. 125–153). New York, USA: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780203935668 - Welton, N. J., Sutton, A. J., Cooper, N., & Ades, A. E. (2012). Statistics in practice: Evidence synthesis for decision making in healthcare. Somerset, UK: Wiley. DOI: 10.1002/9781119942986
- Wengang, Y. (1991). On reading Chinese characters: A neuropsychological and experimental study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University College London.
- Williams, C. C., Perea, M., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (2006). Previewing the neighborhood: The role of orthographic neighbors as parafoveal previews in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(4), 1072–1082. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.32.4.1072
- * Winskel, H. (2011). Orthographic and phonological parafoveal processing of consonants, vowels, and tones when reading Thai. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32(4), 739–759. DOI: 10.1017/S014271641100004X
- * Worf, L. (2015). Adults with dyslexia show parafoveal preview benefits during silent reading (Unpublished thesis). Bournemouth University.
- * Yan, M., Richter, E. M., Shu, H., & Kliegl, R. (2009). Readers of Chinese extract semantic information from parafoveal words. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 16(3), 561–566. DOI: 10.3758/PBR.16.3.561
- Yu, L., & Reichle, E. D. (2017). Chinese versus English: Insights on cognition during reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(10), 721–724. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2017.06.004
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.87 | Journal eISSN: 2514-4820
Language: English
Submitted on: Jul 5, 2019
Accepted on: Oct 8, 2019
Published on: Nov 4, 2019
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Keywords:
© 2019 Martin R. Vasilev, Mark Yates, Timothy J. Slattery, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.