ArticlePsychophysiology2020
Parafoveal-on-foveal repetition effects in sentence reading: A co-registered eye-tracking and electroencephalogram study.
Article in Psychophysiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the compatibility of predictive coding as a model of linguistic predictability effects in reading.Frontiers in cognition · 2026Review
- Neural representation of mixed feelings during real-time processing of negative words in pun-humor.Communications biology · 2025Article
- Fast hierarchical processing of orthographic and semantic parafoveal information during natural reading.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Neural mechanism underlying preview effects and masked priming effects in visual word processing.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
- Fixation-related potentials during a virtual navigation task: The influence of image statistics on early cortical processing.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
- Aging and word predictability during reading: Evidence from eye movements and fixation-related potentials.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
- Parallel phonological processing of Chinese characters revealed by flankers tasks.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- ERPs Reveal How Semantic and Syntactic Processing Unfold across Parafoveal and Foveal Vision during Sentence Comprehension.Language, cognition and neuroscience · 2023Article
- Lexical competition in the flankers task revisited.PloS one · 2023Article
- Neural evidence for lexical parafoveal processing.Nature communications · 2021Article
- The extrafoveal preview paradigm as a measure of predictive, active sampling in visual perception.Journal of vision · 2021Review
- Orthographic and phonological contributions to flanker effects.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2020Article
- Parafoveal-on-foveal repetition effects in sentence reading: A co-registered eye-tracking and electroencephalogram study.Psychophysiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
When reading, can the next word in the sentence (word n + 1) influence how you read the word you are currently looking at (word n)? Serial models of sentence reading state that this generally should not be the case, whereas parallel models predict that this should be the case. Here we focus on perhaps the simplest and the strongest Parafoveal-on-Foveal (PoF) manipulation: word n + 1 is either the same as word n or a different word. Participants read sentences for comprehension and when their eyes left word n, the repeated or unrelated word at position n + 1 was swapped for a word that provided a syntactically correct continuation of the sentence. We recorded electroencephalogram and eye-movements, and time-locked the analysis of fixation-related potentials (FRPs) to fixation of word n. We found robust PoF repetition effects on gaze durations on word n, and also on the initial landing position on word n. Most important is that we also observed significant effects in FRPs, reaching significance at 260 ms post-fixation of word n. Repetition of the target word n at position n + 1 caused a widely distributed reduced negativity in the FRPs. Given the timing of this effect, we argue that it is driven by orthographic processing of word n + 1, while readers were still looking at word n, plus the spatial integration of orthographic information extracted from these two words in parallel.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.