Lexical word processing is unaffected by rapid invisible frequency tagging in reading

Evidence from eye movements

Datos Bibliográficos

ID21640426
AutoresVeronika Prigorkina (0009-0006-6145-645X, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam), Heather Sheridan (0000-0001-8486-644X, University at Albany, State University of New York), Steven Frisson (0000-0002-6414-5538, University of Birmingham), Yali Pan (0000-0002-3179-0151, University of Birmingham, autor de correspondencia)
Año2026
Volumen33
Número6
Fecha de publicación2026-08-01
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaPsychonomic Bulletin & Review (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 1069-9384 • E-ISSN: 1531-5320
EditorialSpringer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.3758/s13423-026-02948-x
PMID42380726
OpenAlexW7166696513
IdiomaEN
Referencias citadas75

The aim of this study was to test whether rapid invisible frequency tagging (RIFT)—a promising tool to directly measure covert attention allocated to parafoveal words—affects lexical processing during natural reading. RIFT involves flickering the background of the target word(s) at an imperceptible frequency (≥60 Hz), but imperceptibility does not necessarily equate to the absence of a cognitive effect. The current study examined the potential impact of the RIFT paradigm on eye movements. Forty-eight participants read 474 high-frequency and low-frequency target words that were embedded in one-line sentences and displayed randomly in three condition blocks: no tagging, invisible tagging at 60 Hz (i.e., the RIFT) and visible tagging at 30 Hz. Linear mixed-effect modelling and divergence point analysis revealed a robust frequency effect, with high-frequency words processed faster than low-frequency words, but, crucially, no significant differences across the three conditions in terms of its magnitude or onset latency, except for a miniscule effect on saccade amplitude (0.06 ̊). Overall fixation durations (irrespective of lexical frequency) did not differ between the no-tagging and RIFT conditions, but were significantly longer in the visible tagging condition, suggesting that deliberately drawing attention to the tagging area actually slowed down reading. Furthermore, a postexperiment questionnaire indicated relatively low RIFT awareness. Altogether, preserved lexical frequency effects of comparable magnitude, similar divergence points and overall fixation and saccade patterns, suggest that RIFT is a valid tool for measuring attention during reading that is unlikely to interfere with word processing and highlight its potential for application in ecologically valid settings involving eye movements

Cognition · Covert · Eye movement · Lexical access · Lexical decision task · Saccade · Word lists by frequency · Gaze Tracking and Assistive Technology · Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism · Reading and Literacy Development