Contradicting results concerning binocular coordination in reading have been reported: Liversedge et al. (2006) reported a dominance of uncrossed fixations, whereas Nuthmann and Kliegl (2009) observed more crossed fixations in reading. Based on both earlier and continuing studies, we conducted a reading experiment involving varying brightness of background and font. Calibration was performed using Gabor patches presented on grey background. During the experimental session, text had to be read either on dark, bright, or grey background. The data corroborates former results that showed a predominance of uncrossed fixations when reading on dark background, as well as those showing a predominance of crossed fixations, when reading on bright background. Besides these systematic shifts, the new results show an increase in unsystematic variability when changing the overall brightness from calibration to test. The origins of the effects need to be clarified in future research.
Brainard, D. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10 (4), 433-436.
Drewes, J., Masson, G. S., Montagnini, A. (2012). Shifts in reported gaze position due to changes in pupil size: Ground truth and compensation. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications, Santa Barbara, California, 28-30 March 2012, pp. 209-212.
Easa, H. K., Mantiuk, R. K., Lim, I. S. (2013). Evaluation of monocular depth cues on a high-dynamic-range display for visualization. ACM Trans. Appl. Percept., 2 (3), 1-14.
Hoffman, D., Girshick, A., Akeley, K., Banks, M. (2008). Vergence-accommodation conflicts hinder visual performance and cause visual fatigue. J. Vis., 8 (3), 1-30.
Hone, G. N., Davies, I. R. L. (1993). Brightness and depth on the flat screen: cue conflict in simulator displays. In: Human Vision, Visual Processing, and Digital Display IV. Proceedings of the Symposium on Electronic Imaging: Science and Technology, San Jose, CA, United States, 8 September 1993, pp. 518-528.
Huestegge, L., K. H., Radach, R. (2010). Long-term effects of cannabis on eye movement control in reading. Psychopharmacology, 209 (1), pp. 77-84.
Jaschinski, W., Heuer, H., Kylian, H. (1998). Preferred position of visual displays relative to the eyes: A field study of visual strain and individual differences. Ergonomics, 41 (7), 1043-1049.
Kirkby, J. A., Blythe, H. I., Drieghe, D., Benson, V., Liversedge, S. P. (2013). Investigating eye movement acquisition and analysis technologies as a causal factor in differential prevalence of crossed and uncrossed fixation disparity during reading and dot scanning. Behav. Res. Meth., 45 (3), pp. 664-678.
Liversedge, S., White, S., Findlay, J., Rayner, K. (2006). Binocular coordination of eye movements during reading. Vis. Res., 46 (15), 2363-2374.
Nuthmann, A., Kliegl, R. (2009). An examination of binocular reading fixations based on sentence corpus data. J. Vis., 9, 31.1-28.
Nyström, M., Andersson, R., Holmqvist, K., van de Weijer, J. (2013). The influence of calibration method and eye physiology on eyetracking data quality. Behav. Res. Meth., 45 (1), 272-288.
Oetjen, S., Ziefle, M. (2007). The effects of LCD anisotropy on the visual performance of users of different ages. Human Factors, 49 (4), 619-627.
Radach, R., Heller, D. (1999). Eye movements in reading: Are two eyes better than one? In: Becker, W., Deubel, H., Mergner, T. (eds). Current Oculomotor Research: Physiological and Psychological Aspects. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 341-348.
Schaeffel, F., Howland, H. (1995). Myopia. Vis. Res. Special Issue, 35, 1135-1358.
Svede, A., Treija, E., Jaschinski, W., Krumina, G. (2015). Monocular and binocular calibrations in evaluating fixation disparity with a video-based eye-tracker. Perception, 44 (8-9), 1110-1128.