**5.8 Reading speed**

*Visual Impairment and Blindness - What We Know and What We Have to Know*

*Mean fixation duration per word, in word order for each participant group.*

the same magnitude duration as "potential" suggesting that the participants were perhaps treating the text on a word-by-word basis and not processing concepts created by successive words. The poor readers had much higher instances of first fixation durations for many words in line 2, which was the most difficult line. Furthermore, for poor readers the words "collide" and "crystals" caused the highest and second highest first fixation duration on line 2. These could be considered to be more difficult

**Figure 7** shows the total fixation duration per word in the order the words appeared in the text. Similar to previous per word metrics, these also fluctuate. As one would expect there are some larger spikes on line 2 which was classified as the most difficult line. For example, looking at the larger duration on word number 25, the word is "enormous" and refers to an "enormous electrical field". The word "enormous" might have been a particularly difficult word for the participants. The first fixation duration on this word was also high for all groups. Barkers also had, on average, an increased duration on the word "potential" for the concept "potential

words, hence the increase in first pass processing for this particular group.

**374**

**5.7 Total fixation duration**

*First fixation duration per word for each participant group.*

**Figure 5.**

**Figure 6.**

Reading speed was calculated for each line as milliseconds per character. There was no significant difference between the lines for the barkers (χ<sup>2</sup> = 9.3, p = 0.05) at an alpha-level of 0.05 but it can be considered significant at a level of 0.1. There was a significant difference for the poor readers (χ<sup>2</sup> = 45.9, p < 0.05) and moderate readers (χ<sup>2</sup> = 22.3, p < 0.05).

Significant differences are plotted in the **Table 7**, where B denotes barker, P denotes poor readers and M denotes moderate readers.

The table clearly shows that for the majority of the cases the same lines account for significant differences in each of the groups. Inspecting **Figure 8** shows that the

#### **Figure 7.**

*Total fixation duration per word for each participant group.*


#### **Table 7.**

*Summary of significant difference in reading speeds between lines.*

#### *Visual Impairment and Blindness - What We Know and What We Have to Know*

#### **Figure 8.**

*Reading speed (milliseconds per character) for each line.*

reading speed (in milliseconds per character) is significantly faster for lines 1 and 2. Line 3 is the shortest lines in terms of the number of words and it appears that participants slowed down when the line was shorter in this instance which is contrary to what one would expect given the mean fixation durations. Mean fixation durations for the barkers corresponded to the length of the line. Considering this, together with the reading speed, it can be posited that they had many short fixations on line 3.

#### **5.9 Number of fixations**

The number of fixations was calculated for each line and then spread over the number of words, hence the measurement is mean number of fixations per word for each line.

There was no significant difference between barkers (χ<sup>2</sup> = 3.04, p > 0.5), but there was a significant difference between poor readers (χ<sup>2</sup> = 22.0, p < 0.05) and moderate readers (χ<sup>2</sup> = 11.8, p < 0.05).

For poor readers, line 1 differed significantly from lines 3, 4, and 5. Line 2 differed significantly from lines 3, 4, and 5 and line 3 differed from lines 4 and 5. For the moderate readers, lines 1 and 2 differed significantly from line 3.

Inspection of **Figure 9** shows that line 3 had the most fixations per word for all groups. This confirms the supposition that barkers on line 3 had many short fixations, accounting for the slower speed. To reiterate, line 3 was the shortest and did not contain any difficult words or concepts and, in particular, the barkers and the poor readers may have realised that the text in line 3 was understandable and hence they tried to read with more comprehension and cognitive processing, thus causing an increase in the number of fixations per word. An increase in cognitive processing also corresponds to the increase in fixation duration for poor readers. However, the same phenomenon is not seen with the barkers, who had lower fixation duration here, hence they seem to be processing the words by fixating on them more with short fixations, perhaps on a per syllable basis or with many refixations in order to understand the text. As mentioned previously, a word-by-word analysis will provide more details on this but is beyond the scope of this chapter.

**377**

ing on this level.

*Eye Movements during Barking at Print DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.81898*

**6. Discussion**

*Fixations per word for each line.*

**Figure 9.**

barking at print?

proficiency?

on the first pass reading.

The following research questions were posed at the start of this chapter.

1.How do the reading eye-movements of those participants who were barking at print compare to those of their peers of two levels of reading proficiency?

3.How do the eye-movement characteristics of barking at print compare to those published for skimming, scanning and reading for meaning at various levels of

2.What are the eye movement characteristics of those participants who were

The first two research questions will be answered together. There were no significant differences detected between barkers and non-barkers for any of the standard reading metrics. However, barkers do exhibit lower fixation durations, although durations are of a higher magnitude typical of second language reading, fewer regressions, coupled with a lower regression percentage. They also have fewer fixations and longer saccades although only marginally so. During first pass reading, barkers have shorter first fixation durations and shorter visits per word but the number of fixations and visits per word are similar to non-barkers. Barkers tend to adjust their mean fixation durations to the length and/or difficulty of the line currently being read as they read slower on easier and shorter sentences as a result of many short fixations, suggesting either more regressions or more fixations per word

In terms of fixation durations for skimming, scanning and thorough reading, barkers have shorter durations such as with skimming. Similarly, the longer saccades and fewer regressions [47] are similar to skimming. An in-depth comparison of these types of reading with our barkers will determine if there are significant differences or not but for now an anecdotal description can be provided. When mind wandering, first fixations and fixations are longer and number of regressions [42] and fixations are lower and the length of the saccades are shorter [43]. Hence, apart from the number of regressions, barking is not comparable to mind wander*Eye Movements during Barking at Print DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.81898*

**Figure 9.**

*Visual Impairment and Blindness - What We Know and What We Have to Know*

reading speed (in milliseconds per character) is significantly faster for lines 1 and 2. Line 3 is the shortest lines in terms of the number of words and it appears that participants slowed down when the line was shorter in this instance which is contrary to what one would expect given the mean fixation durations. Mean fixation durations for the barkers corresponded to the length of the line. Considering this, together with the read-

The number of fixations was calculated for each line and then spread over the number of words, hence the measurement is mean number of fixations per word for

For poor readers, line 1 differed significantly from lines 3, 4, and 5. Line 2 differed significantly from lines 3, 4, and 5 and line 3 differed from lines 4 and 5. For

Inspection of **Figure 9** shows that line 3 had the most fixations per word for all groups. This confirms the supposition that barkers on line 3 had many short fixations, accounting for the slower speed. To reiterate, line 3 was the shortest and did not contain any difficult words or concepts and, in particular, the barkers and the poor readers may have realised that the text in line 3 was understandable and hence they tried to read with more comprehension and cognitive processing, thus causing an increase in the number of fixations per word. An increase in cognitive processing also corresponds to the increase in fixation duration for poor readers. However, the same phenomenon is not seen with the barkers, who had lower fixation duration here, hence they seem to be processing the words by fixating on them more with short fixations, perhaps on a per syllable basis or with many refixations in order to understand the text. As mentioned previously, a word-by-word analysis will provide

= 3.04, p > 0.5), but

= 22.0, p < 0.05) and

ing speed, it can be posited that they had many short fixations on line 3.

There was no significant difference between barkers (χ<sup>2</sup>

the moderate readers, lines 1 and 2 differed significantly from line 3.

there was a significant difference between poor readers (χ<sup>2</sup>

= 11.8, p < 0.05).

more details on this but is beyond the scope of this chapter.

**376**

**Figure 8.**

each line.

*Reading speed (milliseconds per character) for each line.*

**5.9 Number of fixations**

moderate readers (χ<sup>2</sup>

*Fixations per word for each line.*
