Top

Gepubliceerd in:

27-01-2022 | Original Article

Preview frequency effects in reading: evidence from Chinese

Auteurs: Jinger Pan, Ming Yan

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 7/2022

Abstract

Studies about sentence reading have shown that visual and lexical information beyond the currently fixated word can be integrated across fixations. The gaze-contingent boundary paradigm has been used widely to explore the extent to which parafoveal information can be processed before a word is fixated on. However, a critical review of the current literature suggests that unrelated mask previews are an unlikely baseline control with zero lexical activation, blurring the nature of experimental effects observed in the paradigm. The present study, therefore, aimed at shedding light on the effect of parafoveal mask properties through a manipulation of preview word frequency. Low-frequency preview words that are unrelated to target words elicited a larger interference than high-frequency preview words. We discuss implications of the preview frequency effect for computational models of eye-movement control in reading.

vorige artikel The process-disruption hypothesis: how spelling and typing skill affects written composition process and product

volgende artikel Bodily, emotional, and public sphere at the time of COVID-19. An investigation on concrete and abstract concepts

Inclusion of the trials with short or long fixations did not change the pattern of results: Identical PB in FFD (b = -.087, SE = .006, t = -15.12), SFD (b = -.095, SE = .006, t = -15.53) and GD (b = -.094, SE = .006, t = -15.32) and frequency PB in FFD (b = .025, SE = .008, t = 3.29), SFD (b = .028, SE = .009, t = 3.28) and GD (b = .022, SE = .008, t = 2.61).

Inclusion of the trials with incorrect display changes did not change the pattern of results: Identical PB in FFD (b = -.064, SE = .005, t = -13.08), SFD (b = -.070, SE = .005, t = -13.75) and GD (b = -.075, SE = .005, t = -15.44) and frequency PB in FFD (b = .019, SE = .007, t = 2.74), SFD (b = .022, SE = .007, t = 3.00) and GD (b = .018, SE = .008, t = 2.40).

Angele, B., Laishley, A. E., Rayner, K., & Liversedge, S. P. (2014). The effect of high- and low-frequency previews and sentential fit on word skipping during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 1181–1203. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036396CrossRefPubMed

Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.CrossRef

Beijing Language Institute Publisher. (1986). Modern Chinese Word Frequency Dictionary (in Chinese). Beijing Language Institute Publisher.

Drieghe, D., Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2005). Eye movements and word skipping during reading revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(5), 954–969. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.31.5.954CrossRefPubMed

Engbert, R., & Kliegl, R. (2003). Microsaccades uncover the orientation of covert attention. Vision Research, 43, 1035–1045. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-6989(03)00084-1CrossRefPubMed

Engbert, R., Nuthmann, A., Richter, E. M., & Kliegl, R. (2005). SWIFT: A dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. Psychological Review, 112, 777–813. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.4.777CrossRefPubMed

Findelsberger, E., Hutzler, F., & Hawelka, S. (2019). Spill the load: Mixed evidence for a foveal load effect, reliable evidence for a spillover effect in eye-movement control during reading. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 81, 1442–1453. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01689-5CrossRef

Gagl, B., Hawelka, S., Richlan, F., Schuster, S., & Hutzler, F. (2014). Parafoveal preprocessing in reading revisited: Evidence from a novel preview manipulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 588–595. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034408CrossRefPubMed

Henderson, J. M., & Ferreira, F. (1990). Effects of foveal processing difficulty on the perceptual span in reading: Implications for attention and eye movement control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 417–429. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.16.3.417CrossRefPubMed

Hohenstein, S., & Kliegl, R. (2014). Semantic preview benefit during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 166–190. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033670CrossRefPubMed

Hohenstein, S., Laubrock, J., & Kliegl, R. (2010). Semantic preview benefit in eye movements during reading: A parafoveal fast-priming study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 1150–1170. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020233CrossRefPubMed

Hoosain, R. (1991). Psycholinguistic implications for linguistic relativity: A case study of Chinese. LEA.

Hutzler, F., Fuchs, I., Gagl, B., Schuster, S., Richlan, F., Braun, M., & Hawelka, S. (2013). Parafoveal X-masks interfere with foveal word recognition: Evidence from fixation-related brain potentials. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 7, 33. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2013.00033CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Inhoff, A. W. (1990). Integrating information across eye fixations in reading: The role of letter and word units. Acta Psychologica, 73, 281–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(90)90027-DCrossRefPubMed

Inhoff, A. W., Eiter, B. M., & Radach, R. (2005). Time course of linguistic information extraction from consecutive words during eye fixations in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 979–995. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.31.5.979CrossRefPubMed

Inhoff, A. W., & Liu, W. (1998). The perceptual span and oculomotor activity during the reading of Chinese sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 20–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.24.1.20CrossRefPubMed

Inhoff, A. W., Pollatsek, A., Posner, M. I., & Rayner, K. (1989). Covert attention and eye movements during reading. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41, 63–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748908402353CrossRefPubMed

Inhoff, A. W., & Radach, R. (2014). Parafoveal preview benefits during silent and oral reading: Testing the parafoveal information extraction hypothesis. Visual Cognition, 22, 354–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2013.879630CrossRef

Inhoff, A. W., & Rayner, K. (1986). Parafoveal word processing during eye fixations in reading: Effects of word frequency. Perception & Psychophysics, 40, 431–439. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208203CrossRef

Inhoff, A. W., & Tousman, S. (1990). Lexical priming from partial-word previews. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 825–836. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.16.5.825CrossRefPubMed

Kennedy, A., & Pynte, J. (2005). Parafoveal-on-foveal effects in normal reading. Vision Research, 45, 153–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2004.07.037CrossRefPubMed

Kennison, S. M., & Clifton, C. (1995). Determinants of parafoveal preview benefit in high and low working memory capacity readers: Implications for eye movement control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(1), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.1.68CrossRefPubMed

Kim, Y. S., Radach, R., & Vorstius, C. (2012). Eye movements and parafoveal processing during reading in Korean. Reading and Writing, 25, 1053–1078. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-011-9349-0CrossRef

Kliegl, R., Hohenstein, S., Yan, M., & McDonald, S. A. (2013). How preview space/time translates into preview cost/benefit for fixation durations during reading. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 581–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.658073CrossRefPubMed

Kliegl, R., Masson, M. E. J., & Richter, E. M. (2010). A linear mixed model analysis of masked repetition priming. Visual Cognition, 18, 655–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280902986058CrossRef

Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13CrossRef

Liu, W., Inhoff, A. W., Ye, Y., & Wu, C. (2002). Use of parafoveally visible characters during the reading of Chinese sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 1213–1227. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.28.5.1213CrossRefPubMed

Luo, Y., Yan, M., & Zhou, X. (2013). Prosodic boundaries delay the processing of upcoming lexical information during silent sentence reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 39, 915–930. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029182CrossRef

Marx, C., Hawelka, S., Schuster, S., & Hutzler, F. (2015). An incremental boundary study on parafoveal preprocessing in children reading aloud: Parafoveal masks overestimate the preview benefit. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27, 549–561. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2015.1008494CrossRefPubMed

McConkie, G. W., & Rayner, K. (1975). The span of the effective stimulus during a fixation in reading. Perception & Psychophysics, 17, 578–586. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203972CrossRef

Miellet, S., & Sparrow, L. (2004). Phonological codes are assembled before word fixation: Evidence from boundary paradigm in sentence reading. Brain and Language, 90, 299–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00442-5CrossRefPubMed

Niefind, F., & Dimigen, O. (2016). Dissociating parafoveal preview benefit and parafovea-on-fovea effects during reading: A combined eye tracking and EEG study. Psychophysiology, 53, 1784–1798. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12765CrossRefPubMed

Ortells, J. J., & Tudela, P. (1996). Positive and negative semantic priming of attended and unattended parafoveal words in a lexical decision task. Acta Psychologica, 94, 209–226.CrossRef

Pan, J., Yan, M., & Laubrock, J. (2020). Semantic preview benefit and cost: Evidence from parafoveal fast-priming paradigm. Cognition, 205, 104452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104452CrossRefPubMed

Pan, J., Yan, M., Richter, E. K., Shu, H., & Kliegl, R. (2021). The Beijing Sentence Corpus: A Chinese sentence corpus with eye movement data and predictability norms. Behavior Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01730-2.CrossRefPubMed

Pollatsek, A., Lesch, M., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1992). Phonological codes are used in integrating information across saccades in word identification and reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 148–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.18.1.148CrossRefPubMed

Pollatsek, A., Reichle, E. D., & Rayner, K. (2006). Tests of the E–Z Reader model: Exploring the interface between cognition and eye-movement control. Cognitive Psychology, 52, 1–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.06.001CrossRefPubMed

R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

Rayner, K. (1975). The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90005-5CrossRef

Rayner, K., Li, X., & Pollatsek, A. (2007). Extending the E–Z Reader model of eye movement control to Chinese readers. Cognitive Science, 31, 1021–1033. https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210701703824CrossRefPubMed

Reichle, E. D., Pollatsek, A., Fisher, D. L., & Rayner, K. (1998). Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. Psychological Review, 105, 125–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.105.1.125CrossRefPubMed

Reilly, R. G., & Radach, R. (2006). Some empirical tests of an interactive activation model of eye movement control in reading. Cognitive Systems Research, 7, 34–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2005.07.006CrossRef

Reilly, R., & Radach, R. (2012). The dynamics of reading in non-Roman writing systems: A reading and writing special issue. Reading and Writing, 25, 935–950. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9369-4CrossRef

Richter, E., Yan, M., Engbert, R., & Kliegl, R. (2010). Modeling Chinese reading with SWIFT: How does word segmentation affect targeting? Paper presented at the 4th China International Conference on Eye Movements, Tianjin, China.

Risse, S., Hohenstein, S., Kliegl, R., & Engbert, R. (2014). A theoretical analysis of the perceptual span based on SWIFT simulations of the n + 2 boundary paradigm. Visual Cognition, 22, 283–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2014.881444CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Risse, S., & Kliegl, R. (2012). Evidence for delayed parafoveal-on-foveal effects from word n+ 2 in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 1026–1042. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027735CrossRefPubMed

Risse, S., & Kliegl, R. (2014). Dissociating preview validity and preview difficulty in parafoveal processing of word n+ 1 during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 653–668. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034997CrossRefPubMed

Risse, S., & Seelig, S. (2019). Stable preview difficulty effects in reading with an improved variant of the boundary paradigm. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72, 1632–1645. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021818819990CrossRefPubMed

Schotter, E. R. (2013). Synonyms provide semantic preview benefit in English. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 619–633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.09.002CrossRef

Schotter, E. R., & Leinenger, M. (2016). Reversed preview benefit effects: Forced fixations emphasize the importance of parafoveal vision for efficient reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42, 2039–2067. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000270CrossRefPubMed

Schroyens, W., Vitu, F., Brysbaert, M., & d’Ydewalle, G. (1999). Eye movement control during reading: Foveal load and parafoveal processing. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52A, 1021–1046. https://doi.org/10.1080/713755859CrossRef

Seelig, S., Risse, S., & Engbert, R. (2021). Predictive modeling of parafoveal information processing during reading. Scientific Reports, 11, 12954. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-92140-zCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Sereno, S. C., & Rayner, K. (1992). Fast priming during eye fixations in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.18.1.173CrossRefPubMed

Tipper, S. P. (1985). The negative priming effect: Inhibitory priming by ignored objects. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37, 571–590. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748508400920CrossRefPubMed

Tsai, J. L., Lee, C. Y., Tzeng, O. J., Hung, D. L., & Yen, N. S. (2004). Use of phonological codes for Chinese characters: Evidence from processing of parafoveal preview when reading sentences. Brain and Language, 91, 235–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2004.02.005CrossRefPubMed

Vasilev, M. R., & Angele, B. (2017). Parafoveal preview effects from word N+ 1 and word N+ 2 during reading: A critical review and Bayesian meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 666–689. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1147-xCrossRef

Veldre, A., & Andrews, S. (2018). How does foveal processing difficulty affect parafoveal processing during reading? Journal of Memory and Language, 103, 74–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2018.08.001CrossRef

Yan, M. (2015). Visually complex foveal words increase the amount of parafoveal information acquired. Vision Research, 111, 91–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2015.03.025CrossRefPubMed

Yan, M., Kliegl, R., Richter, E. M., Nuthmann, A., & Shu, H. (2010a). Flexible saccade-target selection in Chinese reading. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 705–725. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210903114858CrossRefPubMed

Yan, M., Kliegl, R., Shu, H., Pan, J., & Zhou, X. (2010b). Parafoveal load of word n+1 modulates preprocessing effectiveness of word n+2 in Chinese reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 1669–1676. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019329CrossRefPubMed

Yan, M., Luo, Y., & Inhoff, A. W. (2014). Syllable articulation influences foveal and parafoveal processing of words during the silent reading of Chinese sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 75, 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.05.007CrossRef

Yan, M., Richter, E. M., Shu, H., & Kliegl, R. (2009). Readers of Chinese extract semantic information from parafoveal words. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 561–566. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.3.561CrossRef

Yan, M., Risse, S., Zhou, X., & Kliegl, R. (2012). Preview fixation duration modulates identical and semantic preview benefit in Chinese reading. Reading and Writing, 25, 1093–1111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9274-7CrossRef

Yan, M., & Sommer, W. (2019). The effects of emotional significance of foveal words on the parafoveal processing of N+ 2 words in reading Chinese sentences. Reading and Writing, 32, 1243–1256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9914-xCrossRef

Yan, M., Wang, A., Song, H., & Kliegl, R. (2019). Parafoveal processing of phonology and semantics during the reading of Korean sentences. Cognition, 193, 104009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104009CrossRefPubMed

Yan, M., Zhou, W., Shu, H., & Kliegl, R. (2015). Perceptual span depends on font size during the reading of Chinese sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 41, 209–219. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038097CrossRef

Yang, J., Rayner, K., Li, N., & Wang, S. (2012). Is preview benefit from word n+ 2 a common effect in reading Chinese? Evidence from eye movements. Reading and Writing, 25, 1079–1091. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9282-7CrossRefPubMed

Yen, M. H., Tsai, J. L., Tzeng, O. J., & Hung, D. L. (2008). Eye movements and parafoveal word processing in reading Chinese. Memory & Cognition, 36, 1033–1045. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.5.1033CrossRef

Zhang, M., Liversedge, S. P., Bai, X., Yan, G., & Zang, C. (2019). The influence of foveal lexical processing load on parafoveal preview and saccadic targeting during Chinese reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45(6), 812–825.PubMed

Titel: Preview frequency effects in reading: evidence from Chinese
Auteurs: Jinger Pan
Ming Yan
Publicatiedatum: 27-01-2022
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 7/2022
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01628-w

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 7/2022

The impact of stimulus format on task inhibition during task switching

Bodily, emotional, and public sphere at the time of COVID-19. An investigation on concrete and abstract concepts

The interplay between unexpected events and behavior in the development of explicit knowledge in implicit sequence learning

Instructing item-specific switch probability: expectations modulate stimulus–action priming

Beyond motion extrapolation: vestibular contribution to head-rotation-induced flash-lag effects

The role of visual working memory capacity in attention capture among video game players