Header Logo

Connection

Adrian Staub to Eye Movements

Back to Details
This is a "connection" page, showing publications Adrian Staub has written about Eye Movements.
Adrian Staub
Connection Strength
8.477
Eye Movements
  1. Staub A. The ambiguity advantage effect in reading is due to garden-pathing: New evidence from eye movements. Psychon Bull Rev. 2026 Jul 29; 33(6).
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.889
  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 11; 154:101691.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.781
  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: 0.735
  4. 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: 0.587
  5. 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: 0.529
  6. 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: 0.500
  7. 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: 0.453
  8. Kingston J, Levy J, Rysling A, Staub A. Eye movement evidence for an immediate Ganong effect. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2016 12; 42(12):1969-1988.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.446
  9. 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: 0.410
  10. Helfer KS, Staub A. Competing speech perception in older and younger adults: behavioral and eye-movement evidence. Ear Hear. 2014 Mar-Apr; 35(2):161-70.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.376
  11. 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: 0.357
  12. Bogartz RS, Staub A. Gaze step distributions reflect fixations and saccades: a comment on. Cognition. 2012 May; 123(2):325-34.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.325
  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: 0.316
  14. Staub A. Eye movements and processing difficulty in object relative clauses. Cognition. 2010 Jul; 116(1):71-86.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.288
  15. 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: 0.269
  16. Staub A, Rayner K, Pollatsek A, Hyönä 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: 0.243
  17. 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: 0.216
  18. 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: 0.157
  19. Cohen AL, Staub A. Within-subject consistency and between-subject variability in Bayesian reasoning strategies. Cogn Psychol. 2015 Sep; 81:26-47.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.104
  20. 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: 0.092
  21. 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: 0.083
  22. 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: 0.079
  23. 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: 0.079
  24. 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: 0.065
  25. 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: 0.059
  26. 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: 0.039
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.