Early parafoveal semantic integration in natural reading

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The study investigates parafoveal processing during natural reading, combining eye-tracking and MEG techniques, building upon the RIFT paradigm previously introduced by Pan et al. (2021). Overall, the manuscript is well-written with a clear structure, and the data analysis and experimental results are presented in a lucid manner.

The authors have addressed the issues I raised in the previous round of review to my satisfaction. However, I still have two concerns that require the authors' consideration.

Firstly, the similarity between the RIFT analysis process in this study and traditional ERP analysis could lead readers to equate RIFT with components like N400, potentially influencing their interpretation of the results. Although the author's response has somewhat clarified my queries, I seek confirmation: does RIFT itself signify "visual attention" or the "allocation of attentional resources to the flickering target words" (line 208) in this study? While this may not be pivotal, as it primarily serves as an indicator to evaluate whether contextual congruity can indeed modulate the RIFT response rather than indicating early parafoveal semantic integration, I recommend that the authors explicitly address this point in the manuscript, maybe in the discussion section, to enhance reader comprehension of the article's rationale.

Secondly, regarding the study's conclusions, there appears to be an overemphasis in stating that "semantic information ... can also be integrated with the sentence context ..." (line 21-22). As raised by Reviewer 2 (Major Point 1) and acknowledged by the authors in the limitations of the revised manuscript (lines 403-412), the RIFT effect observed likely stems from local congruency. Therefore, adjusting the conclusion to "integrated with previous context" may offer a more precise reflection of the findings.

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 the preceding word. This indicates that the semantic congruency of the upcoming word modulates visual attention demands already in parfoveal 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 eye-tracking and EEG/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 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 and integration and comprehension of the full sentence. Future studies should investigate whether the observed effects depend on sentence context or local congruency.

(2) The authors used MEG and provided a source estimate for the tagging response (Figure 2), which unsurprisingly is in visual cortex. The most important results are presented at the sensor level. This does not add information about the brain sources of the congruency affect, as the RIFT response probably reflects top-down effects on visual attention etc. The RIFT response can test for preview effects on visual brain responses but does not allow the localisation of context processing effects that cause them.

(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. Future studies should aim at reconciling these different findings.

(4) As in previous EEG/MEG studies, the authors found a neural but no behavioural preview effect. As before, this raises the question whether the observed effect is really "critical" for sentence comprehension. If interpreted in terms of "information" and "attention", then one would expect a positive effect on behaviour, either reading speed or accuracy. 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).

Author Response

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews.

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

(1) 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.

We express our gratitude to the reviewer for providing insightful comments. Firstly, we clarify the advantages of the RIFT technique. The revised paragraph is on Page 4 with tracked changes and is copied as follows:

“…… The RIFT technique provides a notable advantage by generating a signal — the tagging response signal — specifically yoked to just the tagged word. This ensures a clear separation in processing the tagged word from the ongoing processing of other words, addressing a challenge faced by eye tracking and ERP/FRP approaches. Moreover, RIFT enables us to monitor the entire dynamics of attentional engagement with the tagged word, which may begin a few words before the tagged word is fixated.”

We also rephase our research questions in the introduction section on Page 5 with tracked changes:

“This paradigm allows us to address three questions. First, we aimed to measure when in the course of reading people begin to direct attention to parafoveal words. Second, we sought to ascertain when semantic information obtained through parafoveal preview is integrated into the sentence context. Modulations of pre-target RIFT responses by the contextual congruity of target words would serve as evidence that parafoveal semantic information has not only been extracted and integrated into the sentence context but that it is affecting how readers allocate attention across the text. Third, we explored whether these parafoveal semantic attention effects have any relationship to reading speed.”

Secondly, we would like to elucidate the significance of investigating the timing of semantic integration and why this complements existing findings of parafoveal processing (POF) during reading. Our manuscript has been revised accordingly, with specific modifications highlighted on Page 2. The revised passage reads as follows:

“…… eye tracking-based evidence for the extraction of parafoveal semantic information …… was eventually extended into English …… For example, Schotter and Jia (2016) showed preview benefits on early gaze measures for plausible compared to implausible words, even for plausible words that were unrelated to the target. These results demonstrate that semantic information can indeed be extracted from parafoveal words. However, due to the limitations of the boundary paradigm, which only assesses effects after target words have been fixated, it is challenging to precisely determine when and how parafoveal semantic processing takes place. Furthermore, it is generally hard to distinguish between the effects of cross-saccade integration (e.g., mismatch between the preview and the word fixated) and the effects of how differing words fit into the context itself (Veldre and Andrews, 2016a, 2016b).”

Thirdly, we now better highlight the contributions of Antúnez et al. paper as they have provided important evidence for parafoveal semantic processing during natural reading. The relevant modifications are highlighted on Page 3. The revised passage is as follows: “Although many of these effects have been measured in the context of unnatural reading paradigms (e.g., the “RSVP flanker paradigm”), similar effects obtain during natural reading. Using the stimuli and procedures from Schotter and Jia (2016), Antúnez et al. (2022) showed that N400 responses, measured relative to the fixation before the target words (i.e., before the boundary change while the manipulated words were in parafoveal preview), were sensitive to the contextual plausibility of these previewed words. These studies suggest that semantic information is available from words before they are fixated, even if that information does not always have an impact on eye fixation patterns.”

References:

Schotter ER, Jia A. 2016. Semantic and plausibility preview benefit effects in English: Evidence from eye movements. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 42:1839–1866. doi:10.1037/xlm0000281

Veldre A, Andrews S. 2016a. Is Semantic Preview Benefit Due to Relatedness or Plausibility? J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 42:939–952. doi:10.1037/xhp0000200

Veldre A, Andrews S. 2016b. Semantic preview benefit in English: Individual differences in the extraction and use of parafoveal semantic information. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 42:837–854. doi:10.1037/xlm0000212

Antúnez M, Milligan S, Andrés Hernández-Cabrera J, Barber HA, Schotter ER. 2022. Semantic parafoveal processing in natural reading: Insight from fixation-related potentials & eye movements. Psychophysiology 59:e13986. doi:10.1111/PSYP.13986

(2) 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.

We agree with the reviewer that stimulus control is very critical for this kind of work and apologize for the lack of clarity in the original manuscript.

(1) We fully agree that word-level factors can be an important confound, which is why we carefully controlled word-level factors in the experimental design. As detailed in the Appendix of the original manuscript, each pair of target words has been strategically embedded into two sentences, allowing for the creation of both congruent and incongruent sentence pairs through the interchange of these words. We now have explicitly specified this design in all sentences, as reflected in the edited manuscript on Page 38. For example, considering the exemplar pair of “brother/jacket”,

“Last night, my lazy brother/jacket came to the party one minute before it was over.

Lily says this blue jacket/brother will be a big fashion trend this fall.”

In this design, the pair of target words is presented in both congruent and incongruent sentences. Participant A reads “lazy brother” and “blue jacket”, while Participant B reads “lazy jacket” and “blue brother”. This approach ensures that the same target words appear in both congruent and incongruent conditions across participants, serving as an effective control for word-level factors.

(2) We acknowledge that the consideration of word-level information is crucial when making claims about contextual integration in the current study. However, we don’t think there are many cases in the stimulus set where a single feature like animacy is enough to create the mismatch. Instead, the stimuli were written so that it is not possible to strongly predict any word or even a specific semantic feature, so that appreciating the mismatch requires the comprehender to integrate the word into the context (and especially to integrate the word with the immediately preceding one). However, this more local modifier/noun plausibility may behave differently from a more global contextual plausibility, which is a limitation of the stimulus set and has been discussed in the revised manuscript, as indicated by the tracked changes on Page 16, as copied below:

“Two noteworthy limitations exist in the current study. Firstly, the construction of pretarget–target word pairs consistently follows an adjective–noun phrase structure, potentially leading to semantic violations arising from immediate local incongruence rather than a broader incongruence derived from the entire sentential context. While the context preceding target words was deliberately minimized to ensure a pure effect of bottom-up parafoveal processing rather than the confounding impact of top-down prediction, it is essential to recognize that information from both local and global contexts can exert distinct effects on word processing during natural reading (Wong et al., 2022). Future investigations should incorporate more information-rich contexts to explore the extent to which the parafoveal semantic integration effect observed in this study can be generalized.”

References:

Wong R, Veldre A, Andrews S. 2022. Are There Independent Effects of Constraint and Predictability on Eye Movements During Reading? J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. doi:10.1037/XLM0001206

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.

We express our gratitude to the reviewer for recognizing the significance of our research question in the domain of natural reading.

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).

We have addressed this limitation of the study explicitly in the revised manuscript. The modifications can be found in the tracked changes on Page 16, and is copied as follows:

“Two noteworthy limitations exist in the current study. Firstly, the construction of pretarget–target word pairs consistently follows an adjective–noun phrase structure, potentially leading to semantic violations arising from immediate local incongruence rather than a broader incongruence derived from the entire sentential context. While the context preceding target words was deliberately minimized to ensure a pure effect of bottom-up parafoveal processing rather than the confounding impact of top-down prediction, it is essential to recognize that information from both local and global contexts can exert distinct effects on word processing during natural reading (Wong et al., 2022). Future investigations should incorporate more information-rich contexts to explore the extent to which the parafoveal semantic integration effect observed in this study can be generalized.”

References:

Wong R, Veldre A, Andrews S. 2022. Are There Independent Effects of Constraint and Predictability on Eye Movements During Reading? J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. doi:10.1037/XLM0001206

(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.

Source estimation was exclusively provided for the tagging response rather than the congruency effect because we posit that this conditional contrast would emanate from the same brain regions exhibiting the tagging responses in general. As depicted in the following figure, source localization for the congruency effect was identified in the left association cortex (Brodmann area 18), the same area as the source localization for the tagging response (the negative cluster observed here is due to the incongruent minus congruent contrast). While we agree with the Reviewer that the RIFT result might indicate a top-down effect on visual attention, it is important to note that, due to the low-pass filter property of synapses, observing a tagging response at a high frequency beyond the visual cortex is challenging.

Author response image 1.

We discussed the necessity of using MEG in the edited manuscript with tracked changes on Page 20, and is copied as follows:

“While the current study was conducted using MEG, these procedures might also work with EEG. If so, this would make our approach accessible to more laboratories as EEG is less expensive. However, there are currently no studies directly comparing the RIFT response in EEG versus MEG. Therefore, it would be of great interest to investigate if the current findings can be replicated using EEG.”

(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.

We have incorporated this valuable suggestion into the discussion section to enhance the clarity of our key result regarding the timing of parafoveal semantic integration. The revised manuscript with tracked changes can be found on Page 14, and the relevant passage is provided below:

“Our results also provide information about the time course of semantic integration …… by as early as within 100 ms after fixating on the pre-target word. The timing of this parafoveal semantic effect appears remarkably early, considering that typical semantic access for a single word occurs no earlier than around 200 ms, as demonstrated in the visual word recognition literature (Carreiras et al., 2014). For instance, in a Go/NoGo paradigm, the earliest distinguishable brain activity related to category-related semantic information of a word occurs at 160 ms (Amsel et al., 2013; Hauk et al., 2012). Therefore, the RIFT results presented here suggest that natural reading involves parallel processing that spans multiple words. The level of (covert) attention allocated to the target word, as indexed by the significant difference in RIFT responses compared to the baseline interval, was observed even three words in advance (see Figure 2C). This initial increase in RIFT coincided with the target entering the perceptual span (McConkie and Rayner, 1975; Rayner, 1975; Underwood and McConkie, 1985), likely aligning with the initial extraction of lower-level perceptual information about the target. The emerging sensitivity of the RIFT signal to target plausibility, detected around 100 ms after the fixation on the pre-target word, suggests that readers at that time had accumulated sufficient semantic information about the target words and integrated that information with the evolving sentence context. Therefore, it is plausible that the initial semantic processing of the target word commenced even before the pre-target fixation and was distributed across multiple words. This parallel processing of multiple words facilitates rapid and fluent reading.”

References:

Carreiras M, Armstrong BC, Perea M, Frost R. 2014. The what, when, where, and how of visual word recognition. Trends Cogn Sci 18:90–98. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.11.005

Amsel BD, Urbach TP, Kutas M. 2013. Alive and grasping: Stable and rapid semantic access to an object category but not object graspability. Neuroimage 77:1–13. doi:10.1016/J.NEUROIMAGE.2013.03.058

Hauk O, Coutout C, Holden A, Chen Y. 2012. The time-course of single-word reading: Evidence from fast behavioral and brain responses. Neuroimage 60:1462. doi:10.1016/J.NEUROIMAGE.2012.01.061

McConkie GW, Rayner K. 1975. The span of the effective stimulus during a fixation in reading. Percept Psychophys 17:578–586. doi:10.3758/BF03203972

Rayner K. 1975. The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading. Cogn Psychol 7:65–81.

Underwood NR, McConkie GW. 1985. Perceptual Span for Letter Distinctions during Reading. Read Res Q 20:153. doi:10.2307/747752

(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.

We acknowledge that the correlation analysis between the RIFT effect and reading speed on the group level lacks causality, making it less ideal for addressing this question. We have incorporated this acknowledgment as one of the limitations of the current study in the revised manuscript on Page 16, as indicated by the tracked changes, and the relevant passage is provided below:

“Two noteworthy limitations exist in the current study. …… Secondly, the correlation analysis between the pre-target RIFT effect and individual reading speed (Figure 5) does not establish a causal relationship between parafoveal semantic integration and reading performance. Given that the comprehension questions in the current study were designed primarily to maintain readers’ attention and the behavioural performance reached a ceiling level, employing more intricate comprehension questions in future studies would be ideal to accurately measure reading comprehension and reveal the impact of semantic parafoveal processing on it.”

We reformulated the last sentence:

“These results support the idea that words are processed in parallel and suggest that early and deep parafoveal processing may be important for fluent reading.”

(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.

We appreciate the reviewer for providing this valuable suggestion. We acknowledge that EOG recordings were not included in the current study due to restrictions on MEG data collection from the University of Birmingham during the COVID-19 pandemic. In our future studies, we will follow the reviewer's suggestion to incorporate EOG recordings in data collection. This addition will facilitate optimal eye movement-related artifact rejection through ICA, as recommended by Dimigen in his methodological paper:

Dimigen, O. (2020). Optimizing the ICA-based removal of ocular EEG artifacts from free viewing experiments. NeuroImage, 207, 116117.

(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).

In the revised manuscript, we have provided a more comprehensive explanation eye movements/saccade planning, aligning it with the SWIFT model. Please refer to Page 15 with tracked changes, and the updated passage is provided below:

“The results of the present study are aligned with the SWIFT model of eye movement control in natural reading (Engbert et al., 2005), wherein the activation field linked to a given word is hypothesized to be both temporally and spatially distributed. Indeed, we found that the initial increase in covert attention to the target word occurred as early as three words before, as measured by RIFT responses (Figure 2C). These covert processes enable the detection of semantic incongruity (Figure 3B and Figure 3C). However, it may occur at the non-labile stage of saccade programming, preventing its manifestation in fixation measures of the currently fixated pre-target word (Figure 1B). Therefore, the RIFT technique’s capacity to yoke patterns to a specific word offers a unique opportunity to track the activation field of word processing during natural reading.”

References:

Engbert R, Nuthmann A, Richter EM, Kliegl R. 2005. Swift: A dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. Psychol Rev 112:777–813. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.112.4.777

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

While the manuscript is well-written and presents a structured analysis of the data, it requires further clarification and substantiation regarding the originality of the research questions, the advantages of the proposed methodology, and the interpretation of the results related to semantic integration. Additional references and a more thorough discussion of related research are needed to strengthen the manuscript's contribution to the field.

We appreciate the reviewer's kind words about this manuscript and the insightful comments and suggestions provided. In the revised manuscript, we have now placed additional emphasis on the importance of investigating semantic integration within the realm of parafoveal processing in natural reading. We have clarified the advantages of employing MEG and RIFT and expanded upon our results in the context of Antúnez et al.'s 2022 paper, as suggested by the reviewer.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) L. 59: The "N400" has been linked to much more than "semantic access". I think it is widely accepted that "access" happens (or at least begins) earlier, and that the N400 reflects high-level integration processes etc.

Earlier debates about whether the N400 is more linked to access or integration have resolved in favour of an access account, but with a growing appreciation of the blurred boundaries between constructions like access, priming, and integration, as Reviewer 1 also pointed out in comment #2.

(2) L. 177: I wasn't sure about the selection of sensors. Were the same sensors used for all participants (whether they had a tagging response or not)?

We appreciate the reviewer for highlighting the confusion regarding the sensor selection procedure in the study. In response, we have added further clarifications about this procedure in the Method section of the revised manuscript. The relevant changes can be found on Page 25 with tracked changes, and the modified passage is reproduced below:

"Please note that the tagging response sensors may vary in number across participants (7.9 ± 4.5 sensors per participant, M ± SD). Additionally, they may have a different but overlapping spatial layout, primarily over the visual cortex. For the topography of all tagging response sensors, please refer to Figure 2A."

(3) Ll. 247ff.: I don't understand the idea of a "spill-over effect". The future cannot spill into the past. Or does this refer to possible artefacts or technical problems?

In the revised manuscript, we have rephrased this passage with tracked changes on Page 11, and the updated version is provided below:

“We conducted a similar analysis of the coherence measured when participants fixated the target word and found no significant modulations related to the contextual congruity of that target word. …… Thus, the parafoveal semantic integration effect identified during the pre-target intervals cannot be attributed to signal contamination from fixations on the target word induced by the temporal smoothing of filters.”

(4) I struggled to follow the "internal attention" explanation for the paradoxical RIFT effect (p. 11/12).

We appreciate the reviewer for pointing out the confusion, and we have rephrased the passage in the revised manuscript with tracked changes on Page 13. The revised version is provided below:

"Previous work has demonstrated that tagging responses decrease as attention shifts from an external task (e.g., counting visual targets) to an internal task (e.g., counting heartbeats) (Kritzman et al., 2022). Similarly, in a reading scenario, visually perceiving the flickering word constitutes an external task, while the internal task involves the semantic integration of previewed information into the context. If more attentional resources are internally directed when faced with the challenge of integrating a contextually incongruent word, fewer attentional resources would remain for processing the flickering word. This may be the kind of shift reflected in the reduction in RIFT responses."

References:

Kritzman L, Eidelman-Rothman M, Keil A, Freche D, Sheppes G, Levit-Binnun N. 2022. Steady-state visual evoked potentials differentiate between internally and externally directed attention. Neuroimage 254:119133.

(5) L. 572: Why was detrending necessary on top of a 0.5 Hz high-pass filter? Was detrending applied to the continuous raw data, or to epochs? Was it just the linear trend or other polynomial terms?

We agree with the Reviewer that, given the prior application of a 0.5Hz high-pass filter to the data, the detrending does not alter the data. Nonetheless, we included this procedure in the manuscript for the sake of completeness. In the revised manuscript, we have provided additional clarification on this point, as indicated by the tracked changes on Page 23. The modified passage is presented below:

"Subsequently, detrending was applied individually to each channel of the continuous raw data to factor out the linear trend."

(6) Source analysis, p. 25f.: How was the beamformer regularized?

This information was already included in the original manuscript on Page 26. The original text is provided below for reference:

“No regularisation was performed to the CSD matrices (lambda = 0).”