Abstract
This study compares four methodologies used to examine online sentence processing during reading. Specifically, self-paced, non-cumulative, moving-window reading (Just et al. in J Exp Psychol Gen 111:228–238, 1982), eye tracking (see e.g., Rayner in Q J Exp Psychol 62:1457–1506, 2009), and two versions of the maze task (Forster et al. in Behav Res Methods 41:163–171, 2009)—the lexicality maze and the grammaticality maze—were used to investigate the processing of sentences containing temporary structural ambiguities. Of particular interest were (i) whether each task was capable of revealing processing differences on these sentences and (ii) whether these effects were indicated precisely at the predicted word/region. Although there was considerable overlap in the general pattern of results from the four tasks, there were also clear differences among them in terms of the strength and timing of the observed effects. In particular, excepting sentences that tap into clause-closure commitments, both maze task versions provided robust, “localized” indications of incremental sentence processing difficulty relative to self-paced reading and eye tracking.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Altmann G. T. M., van Nice K. Y., Garnham A., Henstra J.-A. (1998) Late closure in context. Journal of Memory and Language 38: 459–484
Bever T. G., McElree B. (1988) Empty categories access their antecedents during comprehension. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 35–43
Boland J. E., Tanenhaus M. K., Garnsey S. M. (1990) Evidence for the immediate use of verb control information in sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language 29: 413–432
Carreiras M., Clifton C. Jr. (1993) Relative clause interpretation preferences in Spanish and English. Language and Speech 36: 353–372
Carreiras M., Clifton C. Jr. (1999) Another word on parsing relative clauses: Eyetracking evidence from Spanish and English. Memory & Cognition 27: 826–833
Clifton C. Jr., Frazier L., Connine C. (1984) Lexical expectations in sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 23: 696–708
Cuetos F., Mitchell D. C. (1988) Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the late closure Strategy in Spanish. Cognition 30: 73–105
Forster K. I. (1970) Visual perception of rapidly presented word sequences of varying complexity. Perception & Psychophysics 8: 215–221
Forster K. I. (2010) Using a maze task to track lexical and sentence processing. The Mental Lexicon 5: 347–357
Forster K. I., Forster J. C. (2003) DMDX: A windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 35: 116–124
Forster K. I., Guerrera C., Elliot L. (2009) The maze task: Measuring forced incremental sentence processing time. Behavior Research Methods 41: 163–171
Foss D. J. (1969) Decision processes during sentence comprehension: Effects of lexical item difficulty and position upon decision times. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 8: 457–462
Frazier L. (1987) Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5: 519–559
Frazier L., Clifton C. Jr. (1997) Construal: Overview, motivation, and some new evidence. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 26: 277–295
Freedman S. E., Forster K. I. (1985) The psychological status of overgenerated sentences. Cognition 19: 101–131
Garrett M., Bever T. G., Fodor J. A. (1965) The active use of grammar in speech perception. Perception & Psychophysics 1: 30–32
Gordon P. C., Hendrick R., Johnson M. (2004) Effects of noun phrase type on sentence complexity. Journal of Memory and Language 51: 97–114
Hoeks J. C. J., Hendriks P., Vonk W., Brown C. M., Hagoort P. (2006) Processing the noun phrase versus sentence coordination ambiguity: Thematic information does not completely eliminate processing difficulty. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 59: 1581–1599
Just M. A., Carpenter P. A., Woolley J. D. (1982) Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 111: 228–238
Kamide Y., Altmann G. T. M., Haywood S. L. (2003) The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 49: 133–156
McElree B., Bever T. G. (1989) The psychological reality of linguistically defined gaps. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 18: 21–35
Mitchell D. C. (2004) On-line methods in language processing: Introduction and historical review. In: Carreiras M., Clifton C. (eds) The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eye-tracking, ERP and beyond. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 15–32
Nicol J. L., Forster K. I., Veres C. (1997) Subject-verb agreement processes in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 36: 569–587
Nicol J., Swinney D. (1989) The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 18: 5–19
Phillips C., Kazanina N., Abada S. H. (2005) ERP effects of the processing of syntactic long-distance dependencies. Cognitive Brain Research 22: 407–428
Qiao, X. & Forster, K. I. (2008). Object relatives ARE easier than subject relatives in Chinese. Poster presented in the 14th annual conference on architectures and mechanisms for language processing. Cambridge, UK.
Rastle K., Harrington J., Coltheart M. (2002) 358,534 nonwords: The ARC nonword database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 55A: 1339–1362
Rayner K. (2009) Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 62: 1457–1506
Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2006). Eye movement control in reading. In M. Traxler & M. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 609–653). Cambridge, MA: Elsevier.
Rayner, K., & Sereno, S. C. (1994). Eye movements in reading: Psycholinguistic studies. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (1st ed., pp. 57–81). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Staub A. (2009) On the interpretation of the number attraction effect: Response time evidence. Journal of Memory and Language 60: 308–327
Staub A., Rayner K. (2007) Eye movements and on-line comprehension processes. In: Gaskell G. (eds) The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp 327–342
Tanenhaus M. K., Carlson G., Trueswell J. C. (1989) The role of thematic structures in interpretation and parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes 4: 211–234
Traxler M. J., Pickering M. J., Clifton C. Jr. (1998) Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 39: 558–592
Van Dyke J. A., McElree B. (2006) Retrieval interference in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 55: 157–166
Waters G. S., Caplan D. (2004) Verbal working memory and on-line syntactic processing: Evidence from self-paced listening. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology 57: 129–163
Witzel, J., & Forster, K. (2009). Lexical co-occurrence and ambiguity resolution. Manuscript submitted for publication, University of Arizona.
Witzel, J., & Witzel, N. (2009). Pre-head gap-filling in Japanese sentence processing. Poster presented at the 22nd annual meeting of the CUNY conference on human sentence processing, University of California, Davis, CA.
Witzel, J., Witzel, N., & Nicol, J. (in press). Deeper than shallow: Structure-based parsing biases in L2 sentence comprehension. Applied Psycholinguistics.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Witzel, N., Witzel, J. & Forster, K. Comparisons of Online Reading Paradigms: Eye Tracking, Moving-Window, and Maze. J Psycholinguist Res 41, 105–128 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-011-9179-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-011-9179-x