Abstract

Reichle et al. specify two assumptions as being basic to E-Z Reader: Words are sequentially attended during fixations, and saccades are triggered by a cognitive event. We point out that there is little evidence for the first assumption and counterevidence for the second. Also, the labile/nonlabile stage distinction in saccade preparation seems to be contrary to current evidence. An alternative explanation of saccade onset times in reading assumes that saccades are strategically generated, independent of language processing, but are delayed on a probabilistic basis by processing difficulties.