Binocular coordination and return-sweep saccades among skilled adult readers.

During reading, binocular coordination ensures that a unified perceptual representation of the text is maintained across eye movements. However, slight vergence errors exist. The magnitude of disparity at fixation onset is related to the length of the preceding saccade. Return-sweeps are saccadic eye movements that span a line of text and direct gaze from the end of one line to the start of the next. As these eye movements travel much farther than intraline saccades, increased binocular disparity following a return-sweep is likely. Indeed, increased disparity has been a proposed explanation for longer line-initial fixations. Thus, we sought to address the following questions: Is binocular disparity larger following a return-sweep saccade than it is following an intraline saccade, and is the duration of a line-initial fixation related to binocular disparity and coordination processes? To examine these questions, we recorded binocular eye movements as participants read multiline texts. We report that, following return-sweeps, the magnitude of disparity at fixation onset is increased. However, this increased magnitude of disparity is unrelated to the duration of line-initial fixations. We argue that longer line-initial fixations result from a lack of parafoveal preview for words at the start of the line.

Binocular advantages for parafoveal processing in reading.

During reading, binocular visual input results in superior performance and is particularly important in the pre-processing of parafoveal text prior to direct fixation. It is not yet clear whether binocular vision in the parafovea is necessary for accurate saccadic targeting, or for efficient pre-processing of upcoming text, prior to direct fixation. In the present sentence reading experiment, we used a dichoptic gaze-contingent moving window paradigm in order to establish 1) how much parafoveal binocular input is necessary for fluent reading and 2) which aspect of parafoveal processing is more reliant on binocular vision. Eye movement measures revealed that reading was disrupted unless word N + 1 was entirely binocular in the parafovea, though no additional benefit was observed when word N + 2 was also binocular. Additionally, while fixation durations and reading times were clearly affected by the manipulation, similarly pronounced changes in binocular saccadic parameters such as accuracy, speed, amplitude and velocity were not observed. We concluded that the disruption to reading caused by presenting monocular text to the right of fixation cannot be attributed to difficulties in targeting binocular saccacdes, but instead results from a decreased efficiency in the pre-processing of parafoveal text. These results provide further demonstration for the importance of binocular vision during written text processing.

Does text contrast mediate binocular advantages in reading?

Humans typically make use of both of their eyes in reading and efficient processes of binocular vision provide a stable, single percept of the text. Binocular reading also comes with an advantage: reading speed is high and word frequency effects (i.e., faster lexical processing of words that are more often encountered in a language) emerge during fixations, which is not the case for monocular reading (Jainta, Blythe, & Liversedge, 2014). A potential contributor to this benefit is the reduced contrast in monocular reading: reduced text contrasts in binocular reading are known to slow down reading and word identification (Reingold & Rayner, 2006). To investigate whether contrast reduction mediates the binocular advantage, we first replicated increased reading time and nullified frequency effects for monocular reading (Experiment 1). Next, we reduced the contrast for binocular but whole sentences to 70% (Weber-contrast); this reading condition resembled monocular reading, but found no effect on reading speed and word identification (Experiment 2). A reasonable conclusion, therefore, was that a reduction in contrast is not the (primary) factor that mediates less efficient lexical processing under monocular reading. In a third experiment (Experiment 3) we reduced the sentence contrast to 40% and the pattern of results showed that, globally, reading was slowed down but clear word frequency effects were present in the data. Thus, word identification processes during reading (i.e., the word frequency effect) were qualitatively different in monocular reading compared with effects observed when text was read with substantially reduced contrast. (PsycINFO Database Record

Using a dichoptic moving window presentation technique to investigate binocular advantages during reading.

Reading comes with a clear binocular advantage, expressed in shorter fixation times and fewer regressions in binocular relative to monocular visual presentations. Little is known, however, about whether the cost associated with monocular viewing derives primarily from the encoding of foveal information or in obtaining a preview benefit from upcoming parafoveal text. In the present sentence reading eye tracking experiment, the authors used a novel dichoptic binocular gaze-contingent moving window technique to selectively manipulate the amount of text made available to the reader both binocularly and monocularly in the fovea and parafovea on a fixation-by-fixation basis. This technique allowed the authors to quantify disruption to reading caused by prevention of binocular fusion during direct fixation of words and parafoveal preprocessing of upcoming text. Sentences were presented (a) binocularly; (b) monocularly; (c) with monocular text to the left of fixation; (d) with monocular text to the right of fixation; or (e) with all words other than the fixated word presented binocularly. A robust binocular advantage occurred for average fixation duration and regressions. Also, while there was a limited cost associated with monocular foveal processing, the restriction of parafoveal processing to monocular information was particularly disruptive. The findings demonstrate the critical importance of a unified binocular input for the efficient preprocessing text to the right of fixation. (PsycINFO Database Record