Early parafoveal semantic integration in natural reading

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors' primary research question revolves around the inquiry of "how far in advance semantic information might become available from parafoveal preview." In contrast to prior studies, the current research seeks to achieve a breakthrough in terms of timing by employing innovative technology. They mention in the manuscript that "most of these studies have been limited to measuring parafoveal preview from fixations to an immediately adjacent word... We tackle these core issues using a new technique that combines the use of frequency tagging and the measurement of magnetoencephalography (MEG)-based signals." However, the argumentation for how this new technology constitutes a breakthrough is not sufficiently substantiated. Specifically, there are two aspects that require further clarification. Firstly, the authors should clarify the importance of investigating the timing of semantic integration in their research question. They need to justify why previous studies focusing on the preview effect during fixations to an immediately adjacent word cannot address their specific inquiry about "how far in advance semantic information might become available from parafoveal preview," which requires examining parafoveal processing (POF). Secondly, in terms of the research methodology, the authors should provide a more comprehensive explanation of the advantages offered by MEG technology in the observation of the timing of semantic integration compared to the techniques employed in prior research. Indeed, the authors have overlooked some rather significant studies in this area. For instance, the research conducted by Antúnez, Milligan, Hernández-Cabrera, Barber, & Schotter in 2022 addresses the same research question mentioned in the current study and employs a similar experimental design. Importantly, they utilize a natural reading paradigm with synchronized ERP and eye-tracking recordings. Collectively, these studies, along with the series of prior research studies employing ERP techniques and RSVP paradigms discussed by the authors in their manuscript, provide ample evidence that semantic information becomes available and integrated from words before fixation occurs. Therefore, the authors should provide a more comprehensive citation of relevant research and delve deeper into explaining the potential contributions of their chosen technology to this field.

Further, the authors emphasize semantic integration in their observed results but overlook the intricate relationship between access, priming, and integration. This assertion appears overly confident. Despite using low-constraint sentences and low-predicted targets (lines 439-441), differences between congruent and incongruent conditions may be influenced by word-level factors. For instance, in the first coherent sentence, such as "Last night, my lazy brother came to the party one minute before it was over" (line 1049), replacing the keyword "brother" with an incongruent word could create an incoherent sentence, possibly due to semantic violation, relation mismatch with "lazy," or prediction error related to animate objects. A similar consideration applies to the second example sentence, "Lily says this blue jacket will be a big fashion trend this fall" (line 1050), where the effect might result from a discrepancy between "blue" and an incongruent word. However, the authors do not provide incongruent sentences to substantiate their claims. I recommend that the authors discuss alternative explanations and potentially control for confounding factors before asserting that their results unequivocally reflect semantic integration. My intention is not to dispute the semantic integration interpretation but to stress the necessity for stronger evidence to support this assertion.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This MEG study used co-registered eye-tracking and Rapid Invisible Frequency Tagging (RIFT) to track the effects of semantic parafoveal preview during natural sentence reading. Unpredictable target words could either be congruent or incongruent with sentence context. This modulated the RIFT response already while participants were fixating on the preceding word. This indicates that the semantic congruency of the upcoming word modulates visual attention demands already in parafoveal preview.
The quest for semantic parafoveal preview in natural reading has attracted a lot of attention in recent years, especially with the development of co-registered EEG and MEG. Evidence from dynamic neuroimaging methods using innovative paradigms as in this study is important for this debate.

Major points:

1. The authors frame their study in terms of "congruency with sentence context". However, it is the congruency between adjective-noun pairs that determines congruency (e.g. "blue brother" vs "blue jacket", and examples p. 16 and appendix). This is confirmed by Suppl Figure 1, which shows a significantly larger likelihood of refixations to the pre-target word for incongruent sentences, probably because the pre-target word is most diagnostic for the congruency of the target word. The authors discuss some possibilities as to why there is variability in parafoveal preview effects in the literature. It is more likely to see effects for this simple and local congruency, rather than congruency that requires an integration and comprehension of the full sentence. I'm not sure whether the authors really needed to present their stimuli in a full-sentence context to obtain these effects. This should be explicitly discussed and also mentioned in the introduction (or even the abstract).

2. The authors used MEG and provided a source estimate for the tagging response (Figure 2), which unsurprisingly is in the visual cortex. The most important results are presented at the sensor level. This does not add information about the brain sources of the congruency effect, as the RIFT response probably reflects top-down effects on visual attention etc. Was it necessary to use MEG? Would EEG have produced the same results? In terms of sensitivity, EEG is better than MEG as it is more sensitive to radial and deeper sources. This should be mentioned in the discussion and/or methods section.

3. The earliest semantic preview effects occurred around 100ms after fixating the pre-target word (discussed around l. 323). This means that at this stage the brain must have processed the pre-target and the target word and integrated their meanings (at some level). Even in the single-word literature, semantic effects at 100 ms are provocatively early. Even studies that tried to determine the earliest semantic effects arrived at around 200 ms (e.g. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3382728/, https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-17451-002). The present results need to be discussed in a bit more detail in the context of the visual word recognition literature.

4. As in previous EEG/MEG studies, the authors found a neural but no behavioural preview effect. As before, this raises the question of whether the observed effect is really "critical" for sentence comprehension. The authors provide a correlation analysis with reading speed, but this does not allow causal conclusions: Some people may simply read slowly and therefore pay more attention and get a larger preview response. Some readers may hurry and therefore not pay attention and not get a preview response. In order to address this, one would have to control for reading speed and show an effect of RIFT response on comprehension performance (or vice versa, with a task that is not close to ceiling performance). The last sentence of the discussion is currently not justified by the results.

5. L. 577f.: ICA components were selected by visual inspection. I would strongly recommend including EOG in future recordings when the control of eye movements is critical.

6. The authors mention "saccade planning" a few times. I would suggest looking at the SWIFT model of eye movement control, which is less mechanistic than the dominant EZ-Reader model (https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-13637-003). It may be useful for the framing of the study and interpretation of the results (e.g. second paragraph of discussion).