Do fixation cues ensure fixation accuracy in split-fovea studies of word recognition?

Timothy R Jordan, Kevin B Paterson, Stoyan Kurtev, Mengyun Xu

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    8 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Many studies have claimed that hemispheric processing is split precisely at the foveal midline and so place great emphasis on the precise location at which words are fixated. These claims are based on experiments in which a variety of fixation procedures were used to ensure fixation accuracy but the effectiveness of these procedures is unclear. We investigated this issue using procedures matched to the original studies and an eye-tracker to monitor the locations actually fixated. Four common types of fixation cues were used: cross, two vertical gapped lines, two vertical gapped lines plus a secondary task in which a digit was presented at the designated fixation point, and a dot. Accurate fixations occurred on <35% of trials for all fixation conditions. Moreover, despite the usefulness often attributed to a secondary task, no increase in fixation accuracy was produced in this condition. The indications are that split-fovea theory should not assume that fixation of specified locations occurs in experiments without appropriate eye-tracking control or, indeed, that consistent fixation of specified locations is plausible under normal conditions of word recognition.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)2004-7
    Number of pages4
    JournalNeuropsychologia
    Volume47
    Issue number8-9
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Jul 2009

    Fingerprint

    Cues
    Recognition (Psychology)

    Keywords

    • Cues
    • Fixation, Ocular
    • Functional Laterality
    • Humans
    • Pattern Recognition, Visual
    • Photic Stimulation
    • Reaction Time
    • Recognition (Psychology)
    • Visual Fields
    • Vocabulary
    • Journal Article

    Cite this

    Do fixation cues ensure fixation accuracy in split-fovea studies of word recognition? / Jordan, Timothy R; Paterson, Kevin B; Kurtev, Stoyan; Xu, Mengyun.

    In: Neuropsychologia, Vol. 47, No. 8-9, 07.2009, p. 2004-7.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Jordan, Timothy R ; Paterson, Kevin B ; Kurtev, Stoyan ; Xu, Mengyun. / Do fixation cues ensure fixation accuracy in split-fovea studies of word recognition?. In: Neuropsychologia. 2009 ; Vol. 47, No. 8-9. pp. 2004-7.
    @article{4b3c2b19bb0c4b67a308549bc0a97307,
    title = "Do fixation cues ensure fixation accuracy in split-fovea studies of word recognition?",
    abstract = "Many studies have claimed that hemispheric processing is split precisely at the foveal midline and so place great emphasis on the precise location at which words are fixated. These claims are based on experiments in which a variety of fixation procedures were used to ensure fixation accuracy but the effectiveness of these procedures is unclear. We investigated this issue using procedures matched to the original studies and an eye-tracker to monitor the locations actually fixated. Four common types of fixation cues were used: cross, two vertical gapped lines, two vertical gapped lines plus a secondary task in which a digit was presented at the designated fixation point, and a dot. Accurate fixations occurred on <35{\%} of trials for all fixation conditions. Moreover, despite the usefulness often attributed to a secondary task, no increase in fixation accuracy was produced in this condition. The indications are that split-fovea theory should not assume that fixation of specified locations occurs in experiments without appropriate eye-tracking control or, indeed, that consistent fixation of specified locations is plausible under normal conditions of word recognition.",
    keywords = "Cues, Fixation, Ocular, Functional Laterality, Humans, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Photic Stimulation, Reaction Time, Recognition (Psychology), Visual Fields, Vocabulary, Journal Article",
    author = "Jordan, {Timothy R} and Paterson, {Kevin B} and Stoyan Kurtev and Mengyun Xu",
    year = "2009",
    month = "7",
    doi = "10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.12.014",
    language = "English",
    volume = "47",
    pages = "2004--7",
    journal = "Neuropsychologia",
    issn = "0028-3932",
    publisher = "Elsevier",
    number = "8-9",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Do fixation cues ensure fixation accuracy in split-fovea studies of word recognition?

    AU - Jordan, Timothy R

    AU - Paterson, Kevin B

    AU - Kurtev, Stoyan

    AU - Xu, Mengyun

    PY - 2009/7

    Y1 - 2009/7

    N2 - Many studies have claimed that hemispheric processing is split precisely at the foveal midline and so place great emphasis on the precise location at which words are fixated. These claims are based on experiments in which a variety of fixation procedures were used to ensure fixation accuracy but the effectiveness of these procedures is unclear. We investigated this issue using procedures matched to the original studies and an eye-tracker to monitor the locations actually fixated. Four common types of fixation cues were used: cross, two vertical gapped lines, two vertical gapped lines plus a secondary task in which a digit was presented at the designated fixation point, and a dot. Accurate fixations occurred on <35% of trials for all fixation conditions. Moreover, despite the usefulness often attributed to a secondary task, no increase in fixation accuracy was produced in this condition. The indications are that split-fovea theory should not assume that fixation of specified locations occurs in experiments without appropriate eye-tracking control or, indeed, that consistent fixation of specified locations is plausible under normal conditions of word recognition.

    AB - Many studies have claimed that hemispheric processing is split precisely at the foveal midline and so place great emphasis on the precise location at which words are fixated. These claims are based on experiments in which a variety of fixation procedures were used to ensure fixation accuracy but the effectiveness of these procedures is unclear. We investigated this issue using procedures matched to the original studies and an eye-tracker to monitor the locations actually fixated. Four common types of fixation cues were used: cross, two vertical gapped lines, two vertical gapped lines plus a secondary task in which a digit was presented at the designated fixation point, and a dot. Accurate fixations occurred on <35% of trials for all fixation conditions. Moreover, despite the usefulness often attributed to a secondary task, no increase in fixation accuracy was produced in this condition. The indications are that split-fovea theory should not assume that fixation of specified locations occurs in experiments without appropriate eye-tracking control or, indeed, that consistent fixation of specified locations is plausible under normal conditions of word recognition.

    KW - Cues

    KW - Fixation, Ocular

    KW - Functional Laterality

    KW - Humans

    KW - Pattern Recognition, Visual

    KW - Photic Stimulation

    KW - Reaction Time

    KW - Recognition (Psychology)

    KW - Visual Fields

    KW - Vocabulary

    KW - Journal Article

    U2 - 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.12.014

    DO - 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.12.014

    M3 - Article

    VL - 47

    SP - 2004

    EP - 2007

    JO - Neuropsychologia

    JF - Neuropsychologia

    SN - 0028-3932

    IS - 8-9

    ER -