↓ Skip to main content

When the Eyes No Longer Lead: Familiarity and Length Effects on Eye-Voice Span

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, November 2016
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
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
When the Eyes No Longer Lead: Familiarity and Length Effects on Eye-Voice Span
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01720
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susana Silva, Alexandra Reis, Luís Casaca, Karl M. Petersson, Luís Faísca

Abstract

During oral reading, the eyes tend to be ahead of the voice (eye-voice span, EVS). It has been hypothesized that the extent to which this happens depends on the automaticity of reading processes, namely on the speed of print-to-sound conversion. We tested whether EVS is affected by another automaticity component - immunity from interference. To that end, we manipulated word familiarity (high-frequency, low-frequency, and pseudowords, PW) and word length as proxies of immunity from interference, and we used linear mixed effects models to measure the effects of both variables on the time interval at which readers do parallel processing by gazing at word N + 1 while not having articulated word N yet (offset EVS). Parallel processing was enhanced by automaticity, as shown by familiarity × length interactions on offset EVS, and it was impeded by lack of automaticity, as shown by the transformation of offset EVS into voice-eye span (voice ahead of the offset of the eyes) in PWs. The relation between parallel processing and automaticity was strengthened by the fact that offset EVS predicted reading velocity. Our findings contribute to understand how the offset EVS, an index that is obtained in oral reading, may tap into different components of automaticity that underlie reading ability, oral or silent. In addition, we compared the duration of the offset EVS with the average reference duration of stages in word production, and we saw that the offset EVS may accommodate for more than the articulatory programming stage of word N.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 24%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Student > Master 2 10%
Professor 2 10%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 6 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 4 19%
Linguistics 3 14%
Neuroscience 2 10%
Computer Science 2 10%
Arts and Humanities 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 7 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 30 January 2017.
All research outputs
#12,968,953
of 22,896,955 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#12,015
of 30,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,731
of 311,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#236
of 446 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,896,955 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,021 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
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 311,557 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 446 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.