title: Individual differences in fixation duration distributions in reading.
abstract: The present study investigated the relationship between the location and skew of an individual reader's fixation duration distribution. The ex-Gaussian distribution was fit to eye fixation data from 153 subjects in five experiments, four previously presented and one new. The τ parameter was entirely uncorrelated with the μ and σ parameters; by contrast, there was a modest positive correlation between these parameters for lexical decision and speeded pronunciation response times. The conclusion that, for fixation durations, the degree of skew is uncorrelated with the location of the distribution's central tendency was also confirmed nonparametrically, by examining vincentile plots for subgroups of subjects. Finally, the stability of distributional parameters for a given subject was demonstrated to be relatively high. Taken together with previous findings of selective influence on the μ parameter of the fixation duration distribution, the present results suggest that in reading, the location and the skew of the fixation duration distribution may reflect functionally distinct processes. The authors speculate that the skew parameter may specifically reflect the frequency of processing disruption.
authors: Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts, 430 Tobin Hall, Amherst, MA, 01003, USA, astaub@psych.umass.edu.
authors: Adrian
authors: A
authors: Staub
authors: Ashley
authors: A
authors: Benatar
mesh_terms: D053483:Eye Movement Measurements; D005133:Eye Movements / Q000502:physiology; D005403:Fixation, Ocular / Q000502:physiology*; D006801:Humans; D007206:Individuality; D016011:Normal Distribution; D011932:Reading; D016008:Statistical Distributions
references: Behav Brain Sci. 2003 Aug;26(4):445-76; discussion 477-526
references: 15067951
references: J Exp Psychol. 1965 Apr;69:382-6
references: 14286308
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2001 Mar;27(2):514-44
references: 11294447
references: J Mem Lang. 2011 Jul;65(1):42-73
references: 21709808
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2011 Apr;18(2):371-6
references: 21327339
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2010 Oct;36(5):1280-93
references: 20873939
references: Mem Cognit. 2012 Oct;40(7):1122-31
references: 22576974
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2012 Jun;38(3):603-17
references: 21910560
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007 Mar;33(2):274-96
references: 17352611
references: Psychol Bull. 1979 May;86(3):446-61
references: 451109
references: Psychol Rev. 2005 Oct;112(4):777-813
references: 16262468
references: Cogn Psychol. 2012 Sep;65(2):177-206
references: 22542804
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2012 Nov;38(6):1773-9
references: 22563634
references: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1999 Mar;128(1):32-55
references: 10100390
references: Exp Brain Res. 2007 Feb;177(2):176-83
references: 16977449
references: Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2004 Nov;36(4):742-56
references: 15641420
references: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2008 Aug;61(8):1239-49
references: 17853202
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Jun;9(2):394-401
references: 12120806
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2008 Feb;34(1):205-23
references: 18248149
references: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2007 Aug;136(3):414-29
references: 17696691
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2009 Oct;16(5):798-817
references: 19815782
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2012 Feb;38(1):53-79
references: 21728459