↓ Skip to main content

Parafoveal X-masks interfere with foveal word recognition: evidence from fixation-related brain potentials

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Parafoveal X-masks interfere with foveal word recognition: evidence from fixation-related brain potentials
Published in
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnsys.2013.00033
Pubmed ID
Authors

Florian Hutzler, Isabella Fuchs, Benjamin Gagl, Sarah Schuster, Fabio Richlan, Mario Braun, Stefan Hawelka

Abstract

The boundary paradigm, in combination with parafoveal masks, is the main technique for studying parafoveal preprocessing during reading. The rationale is that the masks (e.g., strings of X's) prevent parafoveal preprocessing, but do not interfere with foveal processing. A recent study, however, raised doubts about the neutrality of parafoveal masks. In the present study, we explored this issue by means of fixation-related brain potentials (FRPs). Two FRP conditions presented rows of five words. The task of the participant was to judge whether the final word of a list was a "new" word, or whether it was a repeated (i.e., "old") word. The critical manipulation was that the final word was X-masked during parafoveal preview in one condition, whereas another condition presented a valid preview of the word. In two additional event-related brain potential (ERP) conditions, the words were presented serially with no parafoveal preview available; in one of the conditions with a fixed timing, in the other word presentation was self-paced by the participants. Expectedly, the valid-preview FRP condition elicited the shortest processing times. Processing times did not differ between the two ERP conditions indicating that "cognitive readiness" during self-paced processing can be ruled out as an alternative explanation for differences in processing times between the ERP and the FRP conditions. The longest processing times were found in the X-mask FRP condition indicating that parafoveal X-masks interfere with foveal word recognition.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 39%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Student > Master 5 11%
Researcher 4 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 5%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 7 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 16 36%
Neuroscience 6 14%
Linguistics 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 13 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 July 2013.
All research outputs
#14,171,982
of 22,713,403 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#837
of 1,339 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,526
of 280,747 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#56
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,713,403 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,339 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,747 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.