Header Logo

Connection

Adrian Staub to Reading

This is a "connection" page, showing publications Adrian Staub has written about Reading.
Connection Strength

10.738
  1. Staub A, Chen A, Peck E, Taylor N. Estimating the rate of failure to notice function?word errors in natural reading. Psychon Bull Rev. 2025 Apr; 32(2):847-854.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.863
  2. Staub A, McMurray H, Wickett A. Perceptual inference corrects function word errors in reading: Errors that are not noticed do not disrupt eye movements. Cogn Psychol. 2024 Nov; 154:101691.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.861
  3. Staub A. The function/content word distinction and eye movements in reading. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2024 Jun; 50(6):967-984.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.809
  4. Huang KJ, Staub A. Using eye tracking to investigate failure to notice word transpositions in reading. Cognition. 2021 11; 216:104846.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.691
  5. Staub A. Do effects of visual contrast and font difficulty on readers' eye movements interact with effects of word frequency or predictability? J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2020 Nov; 46(11):1235-1251.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.647
  6. Staub A, Dodge S, Cohen AL. Failure to detect function word repetitions and omissions in reading: Are eye movements to blame? Psychon Bull Rev. 2019 Feb; 26(1):340-346.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.583
  7. Kush D, Dillon B, Eik R, Staub A. Processing of Norwegian complex verbs: Evidence for early decomposition. Mem Cognit. 2019 02; 47(2):335-350.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.583
  8. Staub A, Goddard K. The role of preview validity in predictability and frequency effects on eye movements in reading. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2019 Jan; 45(1):110-127.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.551
  9. Staub A, Dillon B, Clifton C. The Matrix Verb as a Source of Comprehension Difficulty in Object Relative Sentences. Cogn Sci. 2017 May; 41 Suppl 6:1353-1376.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.499
  10. Kretzschmar F, Schlesewsky M, Staub A. Dissociating word frequency and predictability effects in reading: Evidence from coregistration of eye movements and EEG. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2015 Nov; 41(6):1648-62.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.452
  11. Staub A, Benatar A. Individual differences in fixation duration distributions in reading. Psychon Bull Rev. 2013 Dec; 20(6):1304-11.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.408
  12. White SJ, Staub A. The distribution of fixation durations during reading: effects of stimulus quality. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2012 Jun; 38(3):603-17.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.349
  13. Staub A, Grant M, Clifton C, Rayner K. Still no phonological typicality effect on word reading time (and no good explanation of one, either): a rejoinder to Farmer, Monaghan, Misyak, and Christiansen. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2011 Sep; 37(5):1326-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.349
  14. Staub A. Word recognition and syntactic attachment in reading: evidence for a staged architecture. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2011 Aug; 140(3):407-33.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.347
  15. Staub A, White SJ, Drieghe D, Hollway EC, Rayner K. Distributional effects of word frequency on eye fixation durations. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2010 Oct; 36(5):1280-93.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.327
  16. Staub A. Eye movements and processing difficulty in object relative clauses. Cognition. 2010 Jul; 116(1):71-86.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.318
  17. Staub A, Grant M, Clifton C, Rayner K. Phonological typicality does not influence fixation durations in normal reading. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2009 May; 35(3):806-14.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.297
  18. Staub A, Rayner K, Pollatsek A, Hy?n? J, Majewski H. The time course of plausibility effects on eye movements in reading: evidence from noun-noun compounds. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007 Nov; 33(6):1162-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.267
  19. Staub A. The parser doesn't ignore intransitivity, after all. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007 May; 33(3):550-69.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.258
  20. Staub A, Clifton C. Syntactic prediction in language comprehension: evidence from either...or. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2006 Mar; 32(2):425-36.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.238
  21. Huang KJ, Staub A. The transposed-word effect does not require parallel word processing: Failure to notice transpositions with serial presentation of words. Psychon Bull Rev. 2023 Feb; 30(1):393-400.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.186
  22. Yao P, Staub A, Li X. Predictability eliminates neighborhood effects during Chinese sentence reading. Psychon Bull Rev. 2022 Feb; 29(1):243-252.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.173
  23. Foppolo F, Staub A. The puzzle of number agreement with disjunction. Cognition. 2020 05; 198:104161.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.156
  24. Cohen AL, Staub A. Online processing of novel noun-noun compounds: eye movement evidence. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2014; 67(1):147-65.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.098
  25. Yang J, Staub A, Li N, Wang S, Rayner K. Plausibility effects when reading one- and two-character words in Chinese: evidence from eye movements. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2012 Nov; 38(6):1801-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.092
  26. Johnson RL, Staub A, Fleri AM. Distributional analysis of the transposed-letter neighborhood effect on naming latency. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2012 Nov; 38(6):1773-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.091
  27. Slattery TJ, Staub A, Rayner K. Saccade launch site as a predictor of fixation durations in reading: comments on Hand, Miellet, O'Donnell, and Sereno (2010). J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2012 Feb; 38(1):251-61.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.088
  28. Staub A. The effect of lexical predictability on distributions of eye fixation durations. Psychon Bull Rev. 2011 Apr; 18(2):371-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.085
  29. Drieghe D, Pollatsek A, Staub A, Rayner K. The word grouping hypothesis and eye movements during reading. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2008 Nov; 34(6):1552-60.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.072
Connection Strength

The connection strength for concepts is the sum of the scores for each matching publication.

Publication scores are based on many factors, including how long ago they were written and whether the person is a first or senior author.