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
8.082
Eye Movements
  1. 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: 0.832
  2. 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: 0.782
  3. 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: 0.625
  4. 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: 0.564
  5. 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: 0.533
  6. 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: 0.482
  7. 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: 0.475
  8. 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: 0.436
  9. 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: 0.401
  10. 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: 0.380
  11. 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: 0.346
  12. 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: 0.337
  13. Staub A. Eye movements and processing difficulty in object relative clauses. Cognition. 2010 Jul; 116(1):71-86.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.307
  14. 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: 0.287
  15. 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: 0.258
  16. 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: 0.230
  17. 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: 0.167
  18. 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: 0.111
  19. 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: 0.098
  20. 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: 0.089
  21. 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: 0.084
  22. 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: 0.084
  23. 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: 0.069
  24. 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: 0.062
  25. 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: 0.042
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.