Eye Movement Model

Contents
1 Naming Experiments 3
1.1 Experiment 1a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.1 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.1.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.2 Experiment 1b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.2.1 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.2.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.2.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2 Models 13
2.1 Predictions by the models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.1.1 The preview model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.1.2 The priming model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.1.3 Predictions: Preview model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.1.4 Predictions: Priming Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.1.5 Partial preview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
A Derivations 42
A.1 PDF of a race between two processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
A.2 Probability of a process to win the race . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
A.3 Loops within a state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
A.4 Expected value of the convolution of two geometric distributions 45
1
CONTENTS 2
B Tables 46
B.1 Experiment Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
C Figures 51
C.1 Number of refixations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Chapter 1
Naming Experiments
1.1 Experiment 1a
1.1.1 Method
Participants
Fourteen participants took part in the experiment. One participant was

removed from the eye movement data analysis because of problem measuring
the eye movements during the experiment. All participants were students at
the university of Nijmegen or the hogeschool Nijmegen.
Materials
On each trial, participants were presented with two line drawings of objects,
which they named in a noun phrase coordination, like ’De stoel en de hark’.
The names of the objects were either high frequent, or low frequent, where
frequencies were determined by using the CELEX database. Twelve drawings
of objects with high frequent names and twelve with low frequent names were
used. The names of the objects are listed in Appendix A. From the two sets
of objects twenty-four object pairs were created, so that the frequency of
the object name was orthogonally varried. There were six pairs in which the
first object name was high frequent and the second object name low frequent.
3
CHAPTER 1. NAMING EXPERIMENTS 4
The other object pairs included six high-high frequent combinations, six low-
high, and six low-low combinations. Object names within pairs were not
phonologically neither semantically related. The object pairs are listed in
Appendix A, together with the six practice picture names.
Design
Each pair was presented eight times during the experiment, where each sec-
ond time a pair was presented its order of presentation was reversed. That
is, if first ’tree and house’ was presented, the second time ’house and tree’
was shown to the participant. Table 1.1 shows how the order of presentation
of objects was varried over participants.
Table 1.1: Presentation of pairs in the experiment.

Blocks Participant 1 Participant 2 Participant 3 . . .
1 Normal Reversed Normal
2 Reversed Normal Reversed
The participants were presented with 8 times 24 equals 192 test trials to
which some practice trials at the beginning of each block were added. After
each two blocks there was a short break, which could be used to adjust the
eye tracker settings.
The presentation order of pairs within each pair of blocks was random-
ized accross participants, where the restriction was used that no picture was
allowed to appear in two succesive trials.
Apparatus
The experiment was controlled by a Compaq 486 computer. The pictures

were presented on a ViewSonic 17PS screen. The participants’ speech was
recorded using a Sennheiser ME400 microphone and a SONY DTC55 DAT
recorder. Speech onset latencies were measured using a voice key. Eye
movements were monitored using an SMI EyeLink-Hispeed 2D head-mounted
eye tracking system (SensoMotoric Instruments GmbH, Teltow, Germany).
Throughout the experiment, the position of the right eye was tracked with
a sampling rate of 4 ms. The eye tracker’s spatial accuracy is better than
0.5 degree. Three thresholds were used to detect the onsets and offsets of
saccades: motion (0.2 degrees), velocity (30 degrees/second), and accelera-
tion (8000 degrees/second2). The duration of a fixation was the time period
between two successive saccades. The position of a fixation was defined as
the means of the x- and y- coordinates of the positions recorded during the
fixation.
Procedure
The participants were tested individually. They were seated in a quiet room
approximately 65 cm in front of a monitor. They first received a booklet
including drawings of the practice and experimental objects. The names of
the objects were printed next to them. In a written instruction that the par-
ticipants received together with the picture booklet, they were told that they
would later see pairs of objects which they should name, from left to right in
a utterance like ’stoel en boek’ (’chair and book’). The instructions included
a picture of an object pair and an example of the expected description.
After the participants had read the instruction and studied the picture
booklet, the head band of the eye-tracking system was mounted and the sys-
tem was calibrated. For the calibration, a grid of three by three positions had
been identified. During a calibration trial a fixation target appeared once,
in random order, on each of these positions for one second. The participants
were asked to fixate upon each target until the next target appeared. After
the calibration trial, the estimated positions of the participant’s fixations

and the distances from the fixation points were graphically displayed to the
experimenter. Calibration was considered adequate if there was at least one
fixation within 1.5 degrees of each fixation target. When calibration was
inadequate, the procedure was repeated, sometimes after adjustment of the
cameras. Successful calibration was followed by a validation trial. For the
participants, this trial did not differ from the calibration trial, but the data
collected during the validation trial were used to estimate the participants’
gaze positions, and the error (i.e., the distance between the estimated gaze
position and the target position) was measured. The validation was consid-
ered adequate if the average error was below 1 degree and the worst error
below 1.5 degree. Depending on the result, the calibration and validation
trials were repeated or the main part of the experiment started. Calibration
and validation were repeated after each test block, when needed (because of,
for example, movements of the participant).
At the beginning of each test trial in the main experiment, a fixation
point was presented in the centre of the frame for the left object for 800 ms.
Our earlier experiments, in which two objects were presented, had shown
that on more than 90% of the trials the participants naming object pairs
first looked at the left and then at the right object. This strong tendency to
inspect the objects in the order of mention was reinforced by the presentation
of the fixation point. Following a blank interval of 200 ms, an object pair
was presented for 3000 ms, and the participant named the objects. After
another blank interval of 300 ms the next trial began.
The entire session took about 45 minutes.
Data Analysis
For the off-line analyses of the eye movements, graphical software was used
that displayed for each trial the locations of the speaker’s fixations as dots
superimposed upon the line drawing. The first step in the analyses was to
classify the fixations as falling on the left or right object or elsewhere. A
fixation was categorized as pertaining to an object when it lay inside the

contours of the object or less than 1.5 degrees away from one of its outer
contours.
Next, the speakers’ gaze patterns were examined. At the beginning of
each trial a fixation point had appeared at the location where the left object
would be shown a little later. Consequently, the speakers usually fixated
upon the left object at picture onset. In the cases in which participants
didn’t look at the left object during the first fixation the data was removed
from the analysis. Also the cases in which participants didn’t look at one
of the other two objects were not included in the analysis. Viewing times
were determined by subtracting intimes from outtimes, where intimes were
set to zero when fixation onset of the object occured before picture onset.
Outtimes were defined as the onset of the saccade to the second object.
1.1.2 Results
Trials in which the participant named one of the objects incorrectly, hesi-
tated, and trials in which the voice key was triggered incorrectly were re-
moved from the data analysis. Also the practice trials are left out from the
analysis.
Speech onset latencies
The pattern in the speech onset latencies is illustrated in Figure 1.1 in which
a interaction plot of the mean reaction time is shown. The same kind of plot
for percentage correct is shown in Figure 1.2. It can be seen that the data
pattern is similar for both dependent variables, which is evidence against a
speed-accuracy-trade-off.
The interaction effect is highly significant (F1 (1, 13) = 57.80, p < 0.001; F2 (1, 22) =
31.69, p < 0.001). The simple effect of context within high frequency of the
first object is significant both for participants and items (t1 (13) = 2.90, p =
0.012; t2 (11) = 2.54, p = 0.027), as is the effect of context within low fre-
quency (t1 (13) = −6.37, p < 0.001; t2 (11) = −5.09, p < 0.001). The only
780
760
740
Mean speech onset latency
720
700
Frequency 1st object
High
680 Low
High Low
Frequency 2nd object
Figure 1.1: Mean speech onset latencies for each of the conditions.
.98
.97
.96
.95
Mean proportion correct
.94
Frequency object 1
High
.93 Low
High Low
Frequency object 2
Figure 1.2: Mean proportion correct for each of the conditions.
simple effect that is not significant is the effect of first object frequency within
a high frequency context (t1 (13) = −1.36, p = 0.198; t2 (22) = −0.61, p =
0.548). There is a significant effect of first object frequency within low fre-
quency context (t1 (13) = −6.48, p < 0.001; t2 (22) = −4.35, p < 0.001).
Viewing times
From previous naming experiments in which eye movements were recorded,

it is known that viewing times of an object are related to the time needed to
retrieve the name of the object from the mental lexicon. This relationship
between speech onset latencies and viewing times is explicitly modeled in
the models section. Here it is investigated whether the viewing times show
the same pattern as was found for speech onset latencies. In Figure 1.3 the
interaction plot for the mean viewing times of the first object are presented.
Only the viewing times of the first object are known, because for the second
object the participant didn’t have a reason to move their fixation away from
the object as soon as possible. The data-points in the interaction plot are
based on all the trials in which the participants looked away from the first
object. The numbers of trials in which participants did not look to the second
trials is further investigated in the models section.
460
450
440
430
Mean viewing time
420
High
410 Low
High Low
Figure 1.3: Mean viewing times for each of the conditions.
As can be seen from the interaction plot, the pattern in the viewing
times data ressembles the speech onset data. There is an interaction effect
of frequency of the two objects, which is significant (F1 (1, 12) = 18.88, p =
0.001; F2 (1, 22) = 10.64, p = 0.004). Now only two simple effects are signif-
icant, namely the effect of first object name frequency within low frequency
of the second object (t1 (12) = −3.13, p = 0.009; t2 (22) = −2.97, p = 0.007),
and the effect of second object frequency within high frequent first object
names (t1 (12) = 2.53, p = 0.026; t2 (11) = 3.25, p = 0.008). All the t-values
corresponding to the other simple effects tests are smaller than 1.5.
1.1.3 Discussion
A clear interaction effect of the frequencies of object names is found when
two objects presented together on a computer screen have to be named.
This effect also shows up in the viewing times of the first object, which
is additional evidence for the hypothesis that viewing times are related to
retrieval durations of words from the mental lexicon.
1.2 Experiment 1b
To be sure that the interaction effect is not the result of the particular pairs
of objects used in the experiment, a control experiment is run, in which the
same objects are used, but different pairs of objects are formed.
1.2.1 Method
Participants
Sixteen participants from the Max Planck Participants pool took part in the
experiment. None of the participants took part in Experiment 1a.
Materials, Design, Apparatus, Procedure, and Data Analysis
Materials, design, apparatus, procedure, and data analysis are the same as
in Experiment 1a, except for the pairs of objects that were used. Twelve new
pairs were formed from the twenty-four objects in the experiment, that did
not have semantically or phonologically related object names, and were not
used in Expeirment 1a. The pairs are presented in Appendix A.
1.2.2 Results
Speech onset latencies
Trials in which an error occured are removed from the data analysis. Mean
speech onset latencies are shown in Figure 1.4.
840
830
820
810
800
Mean speech onset latency
790
780

770
High
760 Low
High Low
Figure 1.4: Mean speech onset latencies for each of the conditions.
Again the interaction effect is significant (F1 (1, 15) = 14.48, p = 0.002; F2 (1, 22) =
7.26, p = 0.013). Three simple effects are significant in the participant anal-
ysis and almost significant in the item analysis: The effect of right object
name frequency within high frequent left object names (t1 (15) = 2.67, p =
0.017; t2 (11) = 2.11, p = 0.058), the effect of right object name frequency
within low frequent left object names (t1 (15) = −3.30, p = 0.005; t2 (11) =
2.11, p = 0.09), and the effect of first object name frequency within low fre-
quent right objects (t1 (15) = −4.98, p < 0.001; t2 (11) = −3.28, p = 0.003).
The effect of first object name frequency within high frequent second object
names was not significant (t1 (15) = −1.66, p > 0.1; t2 (11) =< 1).
Viewing times
Mean viewing times are presented in Figure 1.5.

500
490
480
470
460
Mean viewing time
450 Frequency 1st object
High
440 Low
High Low
Figure 1.5: Mean viewing times for each of the conditions.
1.2.3 Discussion
So the effect found in Experiment 1a is replicated in Experiment 1b from
which it can be concluded that the interaction effect is a quite stable effect.
Two possible explanations of the effect will be further investigated in the
forthcoming chapter in which it is discussed how to model these explanations.
The first explanation is the preview theory: because the second picture is
already perceived and processed while fixating the first object, processing
the second picture takes less time when fixating the second picture. The
second explanation is the priming theory: if the second picture is congruent
in frequency with the first picture, the second picture will be processed faster
while it is fixated. How to make these assumptions explicit is explained in
the following chapter.
Chapter 2
Models of viewing times during

picture naming
In the experiment the task of the participants was to name two objects
presented as line-drawings on a computer screen in a clause like ’de fiets
en het bot’ (’the bike and the bone’). The frequency of each object name
was either high or low, according to the celex database. The frequencies of
names within a pair could either be congruent (’high-high’ or ’low-low’) or
congruent (’high-low’ or ’low-high’). As described in the results section the
congruent frequency pairs were named faster than the incongruent frequency
pairs. Also viewing times of the first object for the congruent pairs were
shorter than for incongruent pairs.
Two models are proposed to explain the congruency effects. The first
model, which is named the preview model, illustrated in Figure 2.1. In this
model it is assumed that the second picture is processed too when the first
picture is fixated. The parafoveal processing, however, is slower than pro-
cessing during picture fixation. To explain the congruency effect it must be
assumed that parafoveal processing is more efficient in congruent conditions
than in uncongruent ones. Additionally, it can be assumed that the sec-
ond picture influences the processing of the first, during fixation of the first
object.
13
CHAPTER 2. MODELS 14
F: final state.
I: initial state.
m1: programming eye movement to object 1
F 5
m2b: programming eye movement within second

object
2 l1, l2
l1: lexical access first word
l2: lexical access second word
a: parafoveal processing delay 3

m2b
4
m2b, l2 1
S1, S2, S2b: saccades, fixed duration,
currently assumed to take zero
time. m2, l1
Assumption: m1=m2b S2b
S2 3
2
m1
m2, a*l2 m1, l1
S1
l1 l2
1
1
m1 I
m1, l1, a*l2
S1
1: m1 is cancelled
2: m2 is cancelled
3: m2b is cancelled
Figure 2.1: Order op Processing diagram to describe the preview hypothesis

in picture naming.
The second model, named the priming model, is illustrated in Figure

2.2. This model assumes that the second picture is not processed during
fixation of the first object. However, when the frequency of the picture name
is congruent with the first one, processing of the second picture is facilitated
during fixation.
2.1 Predictions by the models

Predictions of mean reaction times for both of the models can be obtained
in two ways, namely by exact derivation of the equations, and by simulation
studies. The exact derivation method is used here to get an impression of
F: final state.
I: initial state.
F 4

object
l1, l2
l2: lexical access second word

2
m2b
3
m2b, p*l2
time. m2, l1
Assumption: m1=m2b S2b
S2
2
m2
p: processing speed factor picture 2
p (congruent pictures)> p (incongruent pictures) l1
1
1
m1 m1, l1 I
S1
1: m1 is cancelled
2: m2b is cancelled
Figure 2.2: Order of Processing diagram to describe the priming hypothese

in picture naming.
the best fitting model.

Exact derivation of equations is only possible when the so-called expo-
nential distribution is used. This distribution has one free parameter, often
denoted by λ, the rate of the process. In Figure 2.3 three exponential func-
tions are plotted, with three different rates. These functions are plotted
according to the following equation:
P (occurence) = λ · exp(−λ t)
where t denotes the time, and λ the rate of the process.

The exponential distribution is usefull in a reaction time context, because
of the fact that cascading several exponential distributions results in the
gamma distribution, which is illustrated in Figure 2.4. The equation of the
gamma distribution is as follows:
1.8
lambda=0.6
lambda=1.2
1.6 lambda=1.8
1.4
1.2
Probability of an event
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Time
Figure 2.3: Three examples of an exponential distribution.
λn · tn−1 exp(−λ t)
P (end of process) =
(n − 1)!
where λ denotes the rate of the processes that make up the gamma distribu-
tion, and n is the number of exponential components.
Why the gamma distribution is usefull, is illustrated by Figures 2.5 and
2.6 where histograms of response times from Experiment 1b are plotted for
two participants. Participant 1 shows an outlier at about 200 ms, where par-
ticipant has an outlier 13 at 1300 ms. Besides these outliers, the histograms
0.18
lambda=0.6
lambda=1.2
0.16 lambda=1.8
0.14
0.12
Probability of an event
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Time
Figure 2.4: Three examples of a gamma distribution consisting of three ex-

ponential components.
resemble the gamma distribution shape quite accurately. Other distribu-

tions have been proposed to describe reaction time distributions, which will
be discussed in the section on simulation studies.
The expressions for the mean and the variance of the gamma distribution
are as follows:
n
mean =
λ
n
variance =
λ2
1
Therefore the parameters of the gamma can be estimated by filling in the
1
The parameter estimation method in which moments of the distribution (as the mean
and the variance) are used is known as ’the method of moments’. There are methods (like
’maximum-likelihood’ that yield ’better’ estimations.
Histogram of response times of participant 1

50
40
30
20
10
Std. Dev = 127.25

Mean = 815.9
0 N = 191.00
200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0 1200.0
300.0 500.0 700.0 900.0 1100.0 1300.0
Response time
Figure 2.5: Response time histogram of participant 1.
Histogram of response times of participant 13

30
20
10
Std. Dev = 84.03

Mean = 669.3
0 N = 179.00
500.0 600.0 700.0 800.0 900.0 1000.0 1100.0
550.0 650.0 750.0 850.0 950.0 1050.0
Response time
Figure 2.6: Response time histogram of participant 13.
observed values estimations of n and λ can be obtained. The results of this

procedure applied to the data of Experiment 1b is shown in Table 2.1. High
values are found for the number of substages (17 to 45), and relatively low
values for the rates. The number of substages in the models is much smaller.
This difference in number of stages can be solved by assuming that the un-
derlying distribution of each substage is gamma with five subcomponents
and not exponential.
Table 2.1: Parameters of the gamma distribution estimated by using the

’method of moments’.
Participant λ̂ n̂
1 0.0504 41
2 0.0207 23
3 0.0496 31
4 0.0765 45
5 0.0238 19
6 0.0383 29
7 0.0229 23
8 0.0392 30
9 0.0232 17
10 0.0316 27
11 0.0198 17
12 0.0402 27
13 0.0948 63
14 0.0957 65
15 0.0333 30
16 0.0448 34
17 0.0380 31
18 0.0352 28
If the gamma distribution is used, then it is also assumed that all sub-
stages are equally fast. If durations of substages differ, the resulting distri-
bution will be general gamma, also called the Erlang distribution (see McGill
& Gibbon, 1965).
A usefull property of the exponential distribution, concerning the mod-
elling of race-models, is that the distribution of the minimum of two expo-
nential distributions (say, with rates λ1 , and λ2 ) equals:
P (process 1 or 2 f inishes) = (λ1 + λ2 ) · exp(−(λ1 + λ2) t)
In Figure 2.7 the rationale behind this result is illustrated.

Proces A
0 sec. 1 sec.
* * * * * *
Proces B
0 sec. # # # 1 sec.
Proces A en B samen
0 sec. 1 sec.
* Tijdstip waarop proces A is afgelopen.

# Tijdstip waarop proces B is afgelopen.
Figure 2.7: The minimum of two exponentially distributed variables.
The first horizontal line of the figure represents process 1. Each time process
1 ends a * sign is printed. In the second line, each time process 2 finishes a
# is shown. The third line presents the times at which either process 1 or
process 2 ends. The rate at which one of both processes end equals the sum
of the rate of process 1 and the rate of process 2.
Another result that is needed to derive expected durations for the two
models is the following one:
λa
P (”A wins the race”) =
λa + λb
and therefore,
λb
P (”B wins the race”) =
λa + λb
The derivation of these equations is shown in Appendix A.
2.1.1 The preview model

Now the expected time until state five is reached in the preview model (Figure
2.1) can be derived as follows:
E(T15 ) = E(T1 ) + P12 · E(T25 ) + P13 · E(T35 )
where E(T ) is the total expected time until reaching state five, Pij is the
probability of going from state i to j, Ei is the expected time spend in state
i, and Eij is the expected time needed to reach state j from state i.
Some of the values of this equation can now be filled in:
1 λl1 a λl2
E(T15 ) = + E(T25 ) + E(T35 )
λl1 + a λl2 λl1 + a λl2 λl1 + a λl2
The motor programming process is not taken into account in the compu-
tation of the expected duration of the stay in state one. The decision to leave
the motor programming time out of the equation is based on a derivation
presented in Appendix A3.
Expressions for E(T25 ) and E(T35 ) can be derived in a similar way:
E25 = E(T2 ) + P24 · E(T45 + P25 · E(T55 ) =

1 λm2
+ E(T45 )
λm2 + a λl2 λm2 + a λl2
where E(T55 ) is zero because it takes no time to go from a state to itself.
1
E(T35 ) = E(T3 ) =
λl1
1
E(T45 ) = E(T4 ) =
λl2
Filling in these expressions into the expression of E(T ) gives:
!
1 λl1 1 λm2 1
E(T ) = + + +
λl1 + a λl2 λl1 + a λl2 λm2 + a λl2 λm2 + a λl2 λl2
a λl2 1
λl1 + a λl2 λl1
This means that E(T ) is a function of λl1 , λl2 , a, and λm2 . How E(T )
depends on each of the variables is illustrated in Figure 2.8. In the plot the
1
parameters that are not varied are fixed at the following values: λl1 = 400
,
1 1
λl2 = 300
, a = 0.3, and λm1 = 200
. The longer the retrieval of each of the
object names takes, the longer the speech onset latency will be. If parafoveal
processing is better (a is higher), speech onset will be faster. If the saccade
planning process takes more time, parafoveal processing will continue longer
and speech onset will be slower.
700 1100
1000
680
900
E(T)
E(T)
660
800
640
700
620 600
300 350 400 450 500 300 350 400 450 500
1/l1 1/l2
680 700
660 680
640
660
E(T)
E(T)
620
640
600
580 620
560 600
0.2 0.4 0.6 100 200 300 400
a m2
Figure 2.8: Expected speech onset latency as function of the parameters.
It can be assumed that λl1 , and λl2 are a function of frequency of the
object name. a is a number that must be smaller than 1 if parafoveal pro-
cessing is slower than foveal processing. λm2 is the time needed to plan an
eye movement to the second object.
From the model also the time until an eye movement is made to the
second object can be predicted. There is only one path in the diagram that
leads to an eye movement to the second object. Since participants look often
to the second object when naming both pictures, the probabilities of taking
one of the other paths must not be very big. The time needed to go from
state 1 to state 4 equals:
1 1
E(T14 |path 1, 2, 4 is taken) = +
λl1 + a · λl2 λm2
This means that the time until an eye movement to the second object
must be smaller than the time until speech onset. In cases in which this is
not the case, the second object was probably already processed parafoveally
and eye movements to the first object are continued. If viewing times happen
to be very often longer than speech onset latencies, this is an indication of
the model being incorrect. The viewing time depends on the parameters λl1 ,
λl2 , λm2 , and a. How the viewing time depends on each of the parameters is
illustrated in Figure 2.9. The dependencies are similar to those for speech on-
set latency, which is in agreement with observations in previous experiments
in which viewing times were measured together with speech onset latencies.
Another prediction that can be derived from the model is the expected
number of times that participants do not move their eyes to the second object.
That is the number of times the path via states 2 and 4 is not taken. This
probability equals:
P (no saccade) = P (path:1, 2, 5) + P (path:1, 3, 5) =

! !
λl1 a · λl2
· +
λl1 + a · λl2 λm2 + a · λl2
!
a · λl2
λl1 + a · λl2
This probability depends on λl1 , λl2 , a, and λm2 . How this dependency
1 1
is, is illustrated in Figure 2.10. For the parameter values λl1 = 400
, λl2 = 300
,
1
a = 0.3, and λm1 = 200
, the probability if no saccade to the right object
equals 0.4048, which is quite high compared to observed proportions. This
540 510
520 500
500 490
E(T)
E(T)
480 480
460 470
440 460
420 450
300 350 400 450 500 200 250 300 350 400
1/l1 1/l2
560 600
540 550
520
500
E(T)
E(T)
500
450
480
460 400
440 350
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 100 150 200 250 300
a 1/m2
Figure 2.9: Expected viewing time as function of the parameters.
gives an indication that the chosen parameter values must be changed to

better agree with the data. The dependencies are as one would expect: the
longer it takes to retrieve the first object name, the longer the second object
is parafoveally processed and the higher the probability no saccade is needed
to the second object. If processing the second object takes little time, a
saccade to this object is less probable, which is also the case if parafoveal
processing is more efficient (a is large). The faster the motor program to the
second object is completed, the more often a saccade to the second object is
expected.
Finally, the PDF of the number of refixations can be determined. This
number of refixations is a mixture of two distributions: one of the path via
states 1,2, and further, and one via states 1 and 3. The first path results in
the following distribution:
0.46 0.45
0.44
0.4
P(no saccade)
P(no saccade
0.42
0.4 0.35
0.38
0.3
0.36
0.34 0.25
300 350 400 450 500 300 350 400 450 500
1/l1 1/l2
0.7 0.5
0.6
P(no saccade)
P(no saccade)
0.45
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3 0.35
0.2 0.4 0.6 100 200 300 400
a m2
Figure 2.10: Probability of no saccade to the second object.
!N !
λm1 λl1 + a · λl2
P (N refixations) = ·
λm1 + λl1 + a · λl2 λm1 + λl1 + a · λl2
The PDF of this distribution is of a familiar form: it is a geometric

distribution, which is of the form:
f (N) = (1 − p)N · p
and has an expected value of:
1−p
E(N) =
p
which implies that the expected number of refixations from the path via
states 1 and 2 equals:
λl1 + a · λl2
E(N) =
λm1
In the path via states 1 and 3, two states contribute to the number of
refixations, which leads to a convolution of two geometric distributions for
the PDF of the number of refixations there.
The PDF there is of the form:
N
(1 − p1 )t · (1 − p2 )(N −t)
X
P (N) = p1 · p2
t=0
where:
λm1
p1 =
λm1 + λl1 + a · λl2
λm1
p2 =
λm1 + λl1
What the geometric disribution and the convolution of two geometric
distributions look like is illustrated in Figure 2.11. The geometric distribution
is sometimes called the discrete version of the exponential distribution.
The expected number of refixations resulting from state 3, can be com-
puted using the expression derived in Appendix A4.
q1 + q2 − 2 q1 q2
E(Nstate 3 ) =
p1 p2
where
λm1
p1 = 1 − q1 =
λm1 + λl1 + a · λl2
λm1
p2 = 1 − q2 =
λm1 + λl1
Therefore, the total expected number of refixations equals:
λl1 1 − p1 a · λl2 q1 + q2 − 2 q1 q2
E(N) = · + ·
λl1 + a · λl2 p1 λl1 + a · λl2 p1 p2
p=0.3
0.3
0.2
P(N)
0.1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
conv(p1=0.3, p2=0.5)
0.2
P(N)
0.1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 2.11: Example of the geometric distribution and the convolution of

two geometric distributions.
where p1 , p2 , q1 , and q2 are defined as above. The plots illustrating the

dependency of the expected number of refixations on each of the parameters,
is presented in Appendix C1.
To account for the frequency effects found, the lemma retrieval rates can
now be redefined in terms of retrieval rate per frequency category:

 λH for high frequent words
λl1 =
 λL for low frequent words
The same recoding is used for the lemma retrieval rate of the second
object, λl2 .
2.1.2 The priming model

The same predictions as for the preview model can be derived for the priming
model (see Figure 2.2. In the priming model always a saccade to the second
object is made. The expected speech onset latency is the sum of the durations
of each of the subprocesses:
1 1 1
E(T ) = + +
λl1 λm2 p · λl2
where λl1 and λl2 are the rates at which the two lemma’s are retrieved. Again
the predicted viewing time is shorter than the speech onset latency:
1 1
E(V T ) = +
λl1 λm1
This means that the priming parameter does not influence the viewing
time of the first object. However, the pattern in the viewing time data
suggest also priming effects. This presents at least some evidence against the
priming model.
The probability of making a saccade to the second object equals 1, where
the expected number of refixations equals:
! !
λm1 λm1 + λl1 λm1
E(N) = · =
λl1 + λm1 λl1 λl1
This means that the faster lemma retrieval is, the smaller the number of
refixations, and the faster motor programma to the first object, the larger
the expected number of refixations.
In Figures 2.12 to 2.14 an illustration is given of how the dependent
variables depend on each of the independent variables. The speech onset
time depends on each of the parameters. It increases with the lemma retrieval
times and motor planning time and decreases with the amount of priming.
Except for the exact shape of the functions this relationship between the
parameters and the speech onset latency is the same for both models. This
is not the case for the predictions of the viewing time. The priming model
predicts that the viewing time does not depend on the amount of priming and
the lexical retrieval time of the second object. Also the number of refixations
does not depend on properties of the second object and amount of priming,
where in the preview model all parameters have an effect.
950 1000
900
950
850
E(T)
E(T)
900
800
850
750
700 800
300 350 400 450 500 300 350 400 450 500
1/l1 1/l2
940 1050
920 1000
900 950
880 900
E(T)
E(T)
860 850
840 800
820 750
800 700
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 100 200 300 400
p 1/m2
Figure 2.12: Speech onset latency predicted by the priming model as function
of the parameters.
2.1.3 Predictions: Preview model

In order to check whether one of the models can explain the pattern in
the data, datapoints are generated using parameter values that seem to be
realistic for the given task. The following values are used:
700 601
650 600.5
E(VT)
E(VT)
600 600
550 599.5
500 599
300 350 400 450 500 300 350 400 450 500
1/l1 1/l2
601 800
750
600.5
700
E(VT)
E(VT)
600 650
600
599.5
550
599 500
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 100 200 300 400
p 1/m2
Figure 2.13: Viewing time predicted by the priming model as function of the
parameters.

1


 λH = 200

1

λL =


400



 a = 0.3

1
λm2 =


200
The interaction plots predicted by the preview model for speech onset la-
tencies and viewing times are presented in Figures 2.15 and 2.16 respectively.
The model can describe the pattern in the speech onset quite accurately. The
fit of the viewing time data is not so good.
An attempt was made to estimate optimal parameter values for the data
of Experiment 1a by defining an error measure as follows:
2.5 3
2.5
E(N)
E(N)
2 2
1.5
1.5 1
300 350 400 450 500 300 350 400 450 500
1/l1 1/l2
3 4
3.5
2.5
3
E(N)
E(N)
2 2.5
2
1.5
1.5
1 1
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 100 200 300 400
p 1/m1
Figure 2.14: Number of refixations to the first object predicted by the priming
model as function of the parameters.
(E(RTi ) − Obs(RTi ))2 + (E(V Ti ) − Obs(V Ti ))2

X
Error =
i∈{HH,HL,LH,LL}
The error measure was minimized using a simplex search, where none
1
of the parameters was restricted. As starting values of the search λl1
=
1 1
200, λl2
= 300, a = 0.2, λm2
= 200 were used. This minimization resulted
in the following parameter estimations:
1 1 1
= 618, = 662, a = 3.2, = 444
λl1 λl2 λm2
were found, which results in the predicted and observed means plot shown
in Figure 2.17.
1100
1st Object: High
1st Object: Low
1000
900
800
RT
700
600
500
400
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2
Freq. 2nd Object
Figure 2.15: Pattern in the speech onset latencies predicted by the preview
model.
First of all, the parameter values raise some questions about the qualita-
tive fit of the model: retrieval of high frequent words is not much faster than
of low frequent words (618 vs 662 ms). Worse than this is that is it predicted
that parafoveal processing is faster than foveal processing (a = 3.2). Then
the predicted mean plot for reaction times show two parallel lines instead of
an interaction. Changing the initial values of the search does not result in
very different estimations. Finally, the predicted probability of not making
a saccade to the second object is far too high: P = 0.803, probably because
of the efficient preview caused by the high estimated value of a.
In an attempt to improve estimated parameter values, the preview pa-
rameter, a, is fixed to a value of 0.3. The resulting parameter values are:
1 1 1
λl1
= 325, λl2
= 331, a = 0.3, λm2
= 344, resulting in the predicted and
375
1st Object: High
1st Object: Low
370
365
VT
360
355
350
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2
Freq. 2nd Object
Figure 2.16: Pattern in the viewing times predicted by the preview model.
observed values plot in Figure 2.18.

The predicted mean viewing times are now closer to the observed times,
but the interaction pattern in the data is not predicted any more. The motor
planning process now takes more time relatively to the lexical access times,
which results again in a too high probability of no saccade to the second
object (P = 0.826).
The preview model might be improved that only a part of the processing
of the second object can occur during fixation of the first object, so that a
saccade to the second object has to take place in order to name it. This
adaptation of the preview model will be discussed after the fit of the priming
model is presented.
780 750
1st Object: High 1st Object: High
1st Object: Low 740 1st Object: Low
760
730
740
720
720
710
700 700
680 690
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Predicted Means
602 602
600 1st Object: Low 600 1st Object: Low
598 598
VT
596 596
594 594
592 592
590 590
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Freq. 2nd Object
Figure 2.17: Observed and predicted means for the parameter values esti-
mated for the preview model.
2.1.4 Predictions: Priming Model

The predictions of the priming model are presented in plots 2.19 and 2.20.
The priming parameter is set to 0.7, while the other parameters are the
same as in the predictions of the preview model. The pattern in the speech
onset data can again be described quite accurately. However, the predicted
viewing times do not show an interaction for the priming model, which is not
in agreement with the data.
In a similar way as for the preview model, parameter values were esti-
1 1
mated for the priming model. As initial parameter values λl1
= 300, λl2
=
1
400, p = 1.3, λm2
= 200 which resulted in the following parameter estima-
1 1 1
tions: λl1
= 172, λl2
= 201, p = 1.52, λm2
= 407 The plots of predicted and
Observed Means Predicted Means

780 730
1st Object: Low 1st Object: Low
760
725
740
RT
RT
720
720
715
700
680 710
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Freq. 2nd Object Freq. 2nd Object

602 599
600 1st Object: Low 1st Object: Low
598
598
597
VT
VT
596
596
594
592 595
590 594
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
mated for the preview model when the preview parameter is fixed to a value
of 0.3.
observed values are shown in Figure 2.21.

Also the priming model does not show an interaction between first object
frequency and second object frequency. The parameter estimation however
is stable and results in not unrealistic parameter values: high frequent words
are retrieved faster than low frequent words (172 vs 201 ms), and there is
priming (p = 1.52). In the priming model always a saccade to the second
object is predicted, which is closer to reality than the about 80 % percent
of no saccade trials predicted by the preview model. Because of the stable
parameter estimations in the priming model, the expected duration of the
motor program resulting in refixations can be computed, using:
1200
1st Object: High
1st Object: Low
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2
Freq. 2nd Object
Figure 2.19: Pattern in the speech onset latencies predicted by the priming
model.
λl1
E(N) =
λm2
Therefore, the expected number of refixations equals 0.42. The observed
mean is twice as big: 0.89. This difference could be corrected by not assum-
ing that refixating the first object can still occur during planning the eye
movement to the second object.
Although the fit of the priming model is far from perfect, the model
describes the data better than the preview model, which suggests that no
preview takes place in naming two pictures. However, it could be the case
that only perceptual processing of the second picture occurs while fixating
the first object. This option is investigated in the following section.
700
1st Object: High
1st Object: Low
650
600
550
VT
500
450
400
350
300
1 2
Freq. 2nd Object
Figure 2.20: Pattern in the viewing times predicted by the priming model.
2.1.5 Partial preview

The partial preview model is displayed in Figure 2.22. The processing of
the second object is split into two subprocesses. The saccade to the second
object must be made in order to start naming the two pictures.
The equation describing the expected speech onset latency can be derived
in the same way as was done for the preview and priming model.
1
E(T17 ) = {1 + λl1 · E(T27 ) + a · λl2a · E(T37 )}
λl1 + a · λl2a
1
E(T27 ) = {1 + λm2 · E(T57 ) + λl2a · E(T47 )}
λm2 + a · λl2a
1
E(T37 ) = + E(T47 )
λl1

780 750
1st Object: Low 740 1st Object: Low
760
730
740
RT
RT
720
720
710
700 700
680 690
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

602 610
600 1st Object: Low 605 1st Object: Low
600
598
595
VT
VT
596
590
594
585
592 580
590 575
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
mated for the priming model.
1
E(T47 ) = + E(T67 )
λm2
1
E(T57 ) = + E(T67 )
λl2a
1
E(T67 ) =
λl2b
Substituting equations will not yield much extra insight, therefore this is
skipped. The following substitutions are used for each of the frequencies:
" #−1
1 1
λl2b = −
λi λl2a
where λi equals λH for high frequent words and λL for low frequent words.
F: final state.
I: initial state.
F 7

object
l1, l2a, l2b
l2a: visually processing second picture 6
l2b: lexical access second word m2b
a: parafoveal processing delay
l2b
m2b 5
l1, l2a S2b
l2a
time. m2, l1 S2
Assumption: m1=m2b S2b 4
S2 m2
2
m2, a*l2a l1, l2a
l1
3
m1, l1 m1
1
1 l2a
S1
m1 l1, a*l2a, m1 I
S1
1: m1 is cancelled
2: m2 is cancelled
3: m2b is cancelled
Figure 2.22: Partial preview model.
Figure 2.23 shows the expected reaction times for the parameter values
1 1 1 1
λH = 200
, λL = 400
, λp = 150
, a = 0.15, λm2 = 200
together with the
probability of each path taken in the OP diagram. A small interaction is
found, but this is not enough to explain the pattern found in the data of
Experiments 1 and 2.
In deriving the viewing the viewing times for the partial priming model,
an OP diagram with two final states is obtained (states 4 and 5). The viewing
time can be determined by applying the usual set of equations:
E(V T ) = E(T1 ) + P12 · E(T2 ) + P13 · E(T3 ) =

E(T1 ) + P12 (P24 · E(T4 ) + E(T2 )) + P13 (E(T3 ) + E(T4 )) =
!
1 λl1 a · λl2a 1 1
+ · + +
λl1 + a · λl2a λl1 + a · λl2a λm2 + a · λl2a λm2 λm2 + a · λl2a
1250 0.6
1st Object: High 2−5
1st Object: Low 2−4
1200 3−4
0.5
1150
1100
0.4
1050
Probability
RT
1000 0.3
950
0.2
900
850
0.1
800
750 0
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 1 2 3
Freq. 2nd Object
Figure 2.23: Interaction plot predicted by the partial preview model.

!
a · λl2a 1 1
+
λl1 + a · λl2a λl1 λm2
Using the same parameters as for the reaction times example, a set of
predicted viewing times was generated. The predicted viewing times are
shown in Figure 2.24. The partial preview model seems to predict the same
pattern of viewing times as the priming model, namely: no interaction.
700
1st Object: High
1st Object: Low
650
600
550
RT
500
450
400
350
300
1 2
Freq. 2nd Object
Figure 2.24: Partial preview model: Predicted Viewing Times.

Appendix A
Derivations
A.1 PDF of a race between two processes

In a race between two processes with exponentially distributed finising times,
and rates λ1 , and λ2 , the probability density function (PDF) of the first
finishing process equals:
P (process 1 or 2 f inishes) = (λ1 + λ2 ) · exp(−(λ1 + λ2) t)
This equation can be derived in the following way. The probability that a
process has finished before t1 equals:
Z t1
P (process f inished bef ore t1 ) = λ · exp(−λ t)dt =
0
[− exp(−λ t)]t01 = [1 − exp(−λ t1)]
Therefore, the probability that a process is still running after t1 equals:
P (process still running) = 1 − P (process f inished bef ore t1 ) = exp(−λ t1 )
The probability that both processes are still running at time t1 equals:
P (process 1 and process 2 still running) = P (process 1 still running)·
P (process 2 still running) =
42
APPENDIX A. DERIVATIONS 43
exp(−λ1 t1 ) · exp(−lambda2 t2 ) = exp(−(λ1 + λ2 ) t1 )
The probability of at least one process that have finished at time t, can be
found by differentiating:
∂ exp(−(λ1 + λ2 ) t
P (min(process 1, process 2)) = =
∂t
(λ1 + λ2 ) · exp(−(λ1 + λ2) t)
A.2 Probability of a process to win the race

If two processes with exponentially distributed process durations race against
each other, the probability that process A wins the race equals:
λa
P (”A wins”) =
λa + λb
where λa is the rate of process A, and λb the rate of process B.
This equation can be derived in the following way:
Z ∞
P (”A wins”) = P (ta < tb ) = P (ta < tb |ta = t) · P (ta = t) dt =
t=0
Z ∞ Z ∞
P (tb > t|ta = t) · P (ta |t)dt = P (tb > t) · P (ta = t)dt =
0 0
∞
∞ 1
Z
λa exp(−λb t) · exp(−λa t)dt = λa exp(−(λa + λb )t · − =
0 λa + λb 0
λa
λa + λb
One of the processes has to win the race, so
λa
P (”B wins”) = 1 − P (”A wins”) = 1 − =
λa + λb
λb
λa + λb
A.3 Loops within a state

In Figure A.1 a possible situation in which a loop within a state occurs, is
illustrated. If process A ends, the current state is started again with the
same processes running before A ended.
D
B C
A, B, C, D,....
A
Figure A.1: Illustration of loops in OP diagrams.
It can be shown that process A does not influence the expected duration
of the stay in the state. This result can be derived as follows. Here it is
assumed that the process that recurs has rate λr and that all other rates are
denoted λi . The expected duration of the stay in the state equals:
 
1 X
E(T ) = P · 1 + λr · E(T ) + λi · Ti 
i λi i6=r
Therefore:
X X
λi E(T ) − λr E(T ) = 1 + λi Ti
i i6=r
Thus: " #
X X
λi − λr E(T ) = 1 + λi Ti
i i6=r
And thus:  
1 X
E(T ) = P · 1 + λi 
i6=r λi i6=r
This expression for the expected duration of the stay in the state doesn’t
contain the rate of the recurring process. A way to interpretet this equation
is that the expected duration does not take into account properties of the
recurring process.
Because of independence of the processes in a state, the recurring process
doesn’t have an influence on the probability of a certain process to win the
race.
A.4 Expected value of the convolution of two

geometric distributions
In order to derive the expected value of the convolution of two geometric
distributions, the moment generating function (mgf) of the distribution is
used. The mgf of the geometric distribution equals:
p
mx (t) =
1 − q · et
where q equals 1 − p.
The mgf of the convolution of two distributions equals the product of the
mgf of each distribution. Therefore:
p1 p2
mx+y = mx · my = · =
1 − q1 · e 1 − q2 · et
t
p1 p2
2t
1 + q1 q2 e − q1 et − q2 et
The expected value of a distribution can be computed by first taking the
derivative of the mgf with respect to t:
∂mx+y −p1 p2 n
t t 2t
o
= · −q1 e − q2 e + 2 q1 q2 e
∂t [(1 − q1 · et )((1 − q2 · et )]2
and evaluating this expression at the point t = 0:

∂mx+y q1 + q2 − 2 q1 q2
E(Tx+y ) = =
∂t t=0 p1 p2

Appendix B
Tables
B.1 Experiment Materials

In Tables B.1 to B.4 the stimulus materials of Experiment 1a and 1b are
listed.
46
APPENDIX B. TABLES 47
Table B.1: Pairs of object used in Experiment 1a. (Frequency: 1=High,

2=Low).
Left Picture Right Picture Frequency Name 1 Frequency Name 2
arm deur 1 1
arm fluit 1 2
bank slee 1 2
bank voet 1 1
bijl slee 2 2
bijl zak 2 1
boot ster 1 1
boot worst 1 2
broek mond 1 1
broek vaas 1 2
deur broek 1 1
deur muts 1 2
fluit bank 2 1
fluit kam 2 2
hark step 2 2
hark ster 2 1
kam mond 2 1
kam tol 2 2
mond bank 1 1
mond bijl 1 2
muts boot 2 1
muts zaag 2 2
muur zaag 1 2
muur zak 1 1
Table B.2: Pairs of object used in Experiment 1a. (Frequency: 1=High,

2=Low).
neus hark 1 2
neus stoel 1 1
slee arm 2 1
slee tang 2 2
step vaas 2 2
step voet 2 1
ster boot 1 1
ster tol 1 2
stoel arm 1 1
stoel kam 1 2
tang fluit 2 2
tang stoel 2 1
tol muts 2 2
tol neus 2 1
vaas bijl 2 2
vaas muur 2 1
voet muur 1 1
voet tang 1 2
worst deur 2 1
worst hark 2 2
zaag broek 2 1
zaag worst 2 2
zak neus 1 1
zak step 1 2
Table B.3: Pairs of object used in Experiment 1b. (Frequency: 1=High,

2=Low).
arm bijl 1 2
arm broek 1 1
bank fluit 1 2
bank voet 1 1
bijl fluit 2 2
bijl mond 2 1
boot stoel 1 1
boot tang 1 2
broek step 1 2
broek ster 1 1
deur arm 1 1
deur slee 1 2
fluit zaag 2 2
fluit zak 2 1
hark slee 2 2
hark stoel 2 1
kam muur 2 1
kam step 2 2
mond boot 1 1
mond zaag 1 2
muts deur 2 1
muts kam 2 2
muur bank 1 1
muur vaas 1 2
Table B.4: Pairs of object used in Experiment 1b. (Frequency: 1=High,

2=Low).
neus muts 1 2
neus muur 1 1
slee broek 2 1
slee vaas 2 2
step bank 2 1
step bijl 2 2
ster kam 1 2
ster neus 1 1
stoel deur 1 1
stoel worst 1 2
tang neus 2 1
tang worst 2 2
tol boot 2 1
tol hark 2 2
vaas ster 2 1
vaas tol 2 2
voet hark 1 2
voet zak 1 1
worst arm 2 1
worst tang 2 2
zaag muts 2 2
zaag voet 2 1
zak mond 1 1
zak tol 1 2
Appendix C
Figures
C.1 Number of refixations

In the preview model the number of refixations to the first object is a mixture
of refixations in two states. The number of refixations in each of the states
(E1 for state 1, and E2 for state 1 plus 3), the probability of entering those
states (p1 for going from state 1 to state 2, and p1 for going from state 1
to state 3), and the total number of refixations is plotted against a range of
values of each parameter in the model. The parameters that were varried
are: λl1 (Figure C.1), λl2 (Figure C.2), a (Figure C.3), and λm1 (Figure C.4).
1
If a parameter was not varried, it was fixed to the following values: λl1 = 400
,
1 1
λl2 = 300
, λm1 = 200
, and a = 0.3.
51
APPENDIX C. FIGURES 52
2.5 2.5
2 2
E1(N)
E(N)
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
100 200 300 400 500 100 200 300 400 500
l1 l1
6 1.2
4 1
E2(N)
p1
2 0.8
0 0.6
100 200 300 400 500 100 200 300 400 500
l1 l1
0.4
0.3
p2
0.2
0.1
0
100 200 300 400 500
l1
Figure C.1: Expected number of refixations and path-probabilities as func-

tion of the lemma retrieval duration of the first object.
1.4 1.2
1.2
1
E1(N)
E(N)
1
0.8
0.8
0.6 0.6
100 200 300 400 500 100 200 300 400 500
1/l2 1/l2
1.6
1
1.4
E2(N)
p1
1.2
0.5
1
100 200 300 400 500 100 200 300 400 500
1/l2 1/l2
0.6
0.4
p2
0.2
0
100 200 300 400 500
1/l2

tion of the lemma retrieval duration of the second object.
1.2 0.9
0.8
1
E1(N)
E(N)
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.6 0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
a a
1.6 0.9
1.4 0.8
E2(N)
p1
1.2 0.7
1 0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
a a
0.4
0.3
p2
0.2
0.1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
a

tion of the preview efficiency.
1.5 1.5
1 1
E1(N)
E(N)
0.5 0.5
0 0
100 150 200 250 300 100 150 200 250 300
1/m2 1/m2
2 2
1.5 1
E2(N)
p1
1 0
0.5 −1
100 150 200 250 300 100 150 200 250 300
1/m2 1/m2
2
1
p2
−1
100 150 200 250 300
1/m2

tion of the refixation planning duration.

Eye Movement Model

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eye Movement Model

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contents

Fourteen participants took part in the experiment. One participant was

Table 1.1: Presentation of pairs in the experiment.

The experiment was controlled by a Compaq 486 computer. The pictures

the calibration trial, the estimated positions of the participant’s fixations

fixation was categorized as pertaining to an object when it lay inside the

Speech onset latencies

Frequency 2nd object

Figure 1.2: Mean proportion correct for each of the conditions.

From previous naming experiments in which eye movements were recorded,

Frequency 2nd object

Figure 1.3: Mean viewing times for each of the conditions.

Materials, Design, Apparatus, Procedure, and Data Analysis

Frequency 1st object

Frequency 2nd object

Mean viewing times are presented in Figure 1.5.

450 Frequency 1st object

Frequency 2nd object

Figure 1.5: Mean viewing times for each of the conditions.

Models of viewing times during

m2b: programming eye movement within second

l2: lexical access second word

a: parafoveal processing delay 3

Figure 2.1: Order op Processing diagram to describe the preview hypothesis

The second model, named the priming model, is illustrated in Figure

2.1 Predictions by the models

m2b: programming eye movement within second

l2: lexical access second word

Figure 2.2: Order of Processing diagram to describe the priming hypothese

the best fitting model.

where t denotes the time, and λ the rate of the process.

Figure 2.3: Three examples of an exponential distribution.

Figure 2.4: Three examples of a gamma distribution consisting of three ex-

resemble the gamma distribution shape quite accurately. Other distribu-

Histogram of response times of participant 1

Std. Dev = 127.25

Figure 2.5: Response time histogram of participant 1.

Histogram of response times of participant 13

Std. Dev = 84.03

Figure 2.6: Response time histogram of participant 13.

observed values estimations of n and λ can be obtained. The results of this

and not exponential.

Table 2.1: Parameters of the gamma distribution estimated by using the

P (process 1 or 2 f inishes) = (λ1 + λ2 ) · exp(−(λ1 + λ2) t)

In Figure 2.7 the rationale behind this result is illustrated.

* Tijdstip waarop proces A is afgelopen.

Figure 2.7: The minimum of two exponentially distributed variables.

2.1.1 The preview model

E(T15 ) = E(T1 ) + P12 · E(T25 ) + P13 · E(T35 )

E25 = E(T2 ) + P24 · E(T45 + P25 · E(T55 ) =

Figure 2.8: Expected speech onset latency as function of the parameters.

P (no saccade) = P (path:1, 2, 5) + P (path:1, 3, 5) =

Figure 2.9: Expected viewing time as function of the parameters.

gives an indication that the chosen parameter values must be changed to

Figure 2.10: Probability of no saccade to the second object.

The PDF of this distribution is of a familiar form: it is a geometric

and has an expected value of:

Figure 2.11: Example of the geometric distribution and the convolution of

where p1 , p2 , q1 , and q2 are defined as above. The plots illustrating the

2.1.2 The priming model

2.1.3 Predictions: Preview model

(E(RTi ) − Obs(RTi ))2 + (E(V Ti ) − Obs(V Ti ))2

observed values plot in Figure 2.18.

2.1.4 Predictions: Priming Model