↓ Skip to main content

On the Development of Parafoveal Preprocessing: Evidence from the Incremental Boundary Paradigm

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, April 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
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
On the Development of Parafoveal Preprocessing: Evidence from the Incremental Boundary Paradigm
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00514
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christina Marx, Florian Hutzler, Sarah Schuster, Stefan Hawelka

Abstract

Parafoveal preprocessing of upcoming words and the resultant preview benefit are key aspects of fluent reading. Evidence regarding the development of parafoveal preprocessing during reading acquisition, however, is scarce. The present developmental (cross-sectional) eye tracking study estimated the magnitude of parafoveal preprocessing of beginning readers with a novel variant of the classical boundary paradigm. Additionally, we assessed the association of parafoveal preprocessing with several reading-related psychometric measures. The participants were children learning to read the regular German orthography with about 1, 3, and 5 years of formal reading instruction (Grade 2, 4, and 6, respectively). We found evidence of parafoveal preprocessing in each Grade. However, an effective use of parafoveal information was related to the individual reading fluency of the participants (i.e., the reading rate expressed as words-per-minute) which substantially overlapped between the Grades. The size of the preview benefit was furthermore associated with the children's performance in rapid naming tasks and with their performance in a pseudoword reading task. The latter task assessed the children's efficiency in phonological decoding and our findings show that the best decoders exhibited the largest preview benefit.

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 35%
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Master 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 8 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 48%
Neuroscience 4 10%
Engineering 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 11 28%
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 19 April 2016.
All research outputs
#13,465,597
of 22,862,742 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#13,382
of 29,906 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,970
of 300,592 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#234
of 427 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,862,742 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,906 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 53% 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 300,592 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 427 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.