How strongly do word reading times and lexical decision times correlate? Combining data from eye movement corpora and megastudies
How strongly do word reading times and lexical decision times correlate? Combining data from eye movement corpora and megastudies
We assess the amount of shared variance between three measures of visual word recognition latencies: eye movement latencies, lexical decision times and naming times. After partialling out the effects of word frequency and word length, two well-documented predictors of word recognition latencies, we see that 7-44% of the variance is uniquely shared between lexical decision times and naming times, depending on the frequency range of the words used. A similar analysis of eye movement latencies shows that the percentage of variance they uniquely share either with lexical decision times or with naming times is much lower. It is 5 – 17% for gaze durations and lexical decision times in studies with target words presented in neutral sentences, but drops to .2% for corpus studies in which eye movements to all words are analysed. Correlations between gaze durations and naming latencies are lower still. These findings suggest that processing times in isolated word processing and continuous text reading are affected by specific task demands and presentation format, and that lexical decision times and naming times are not very informative in predicting eye movement latencies in text reading once the effect of word frequency and word length are taken into account. The difference between controlled experiments and natural reading suggests that reading strategies and stimulus materials may determine the degree to which the immediacy-of-processing assumption and the eye-mind assumption apply. Fixation times are more likely to exclusively reflect the lexical processing of the currently fixated word in controlled studies with unpredictable target words rather than in natural reading of sentences or texts.
visual word recognition, lexical decision, naming, gaze duration, eye movements, megastudy, corpus
563-580
Kuperman, Victor
2ec8939a-53ea-4c63-937d-b3989a75e990
Drieghe, Denis
dfe41922-1cea-47f4-904b-26d5c9fe85ce
Keuleers, Emmanuel
98381f30-042e-4244-ae9f-807cd46b5d43
Brysbaert, Marc
dfe6bf7d-27f6-4546-82ca-375769276ad5
2013
Kuperman, Victor
2ec8939a-53ea-4c63-937d-b3989a75e990
Drieghe, Denis
dfe41922-1cea-47f4-904b-26d5c9fe85ce
Keuleers, Emmanuel
98381f30-042e-4244-ae9f-807cd46b5d43
Brysbaert, Marc
dfe6bf7d-27f6-4546-82ca-375769276ad5
Kuperman, Victor, Drieghe, Denis, Keuleers, Emmanuel and Brysbaert, Marc
(2013)
How strongly do word reading times and lexical decision times correlate? Combining data from eye movement corpora and megastudies.
[in special issue: Serial and Parallel Processing in Reading]
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66 (3), .
(doi:10.1080/17470218.2012.658820).
Abstract
We assess the amount of shared variance between three measures of visual word recognition latencies: eye movement latencies, lexical decision times and naming times. After partialling out the effects of word frequency and word length, two well-documented predictors of word recognition latencies, we see that 7-44% of the variance is uniquely shared between lexical decision times and naming times, depending on the frequency range of the words used. A similar analysis of eye movement latencies shows that the percentage of variance they uniquely share either with lexical decision times or with naming times is much lower. It is 5 – 17% for gaze durations and lexical decision times in studies with target words presented in neutral sentences, but drops to .2% for corpus studies in which eye movements to all words are analysed. Correlations between gaze durations and naming latencies are lower still. These findings suggest that processing times in isolated word processing and continuous text reading are affected by specific task demands and presentation format, and that lexical decision times and naming times are not very informative in predicting eye movement latencies in text reading once the effect of word frequency and word length are taken into account. The difference between controlled experiments and natural reading suggests that reading strategies and stimulus materials may determine the degree to which the immediacy-of-processing assumption and the eye-mind assumption apply. Fixation times are more likely to exclusively reflect the lexical processing of the currently fixated word in controlled studies with unpredictable target words rather than in natural reading of sentences or texts.
Text
Ms Kuperman et al QJEP special issue final version.pdf
- Author's Original
More information
Published date: 2013
Keywords:
visual word recognition, lexical decision, naming, gaze duration, eye movements, megastudy, corpus
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 349813
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/349813
ISSN: 1747-0218
PURE UUID: 216280aa-b2f2-49b8-a303-407285f2930a
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 12 Mar 2013 09:27
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 03:34
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Victor Kuperman
Author:
Emmanuel Keuleers
Author:
Marc Brysbaert
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics