预视对阅读中语境预测性效应的影响*

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20230401

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 研究采用增量呈现文本范式操纵预视类型,并同时操纵目标词语境预测性,考察了预视对词汇加工中早期语境预测性效应的影响。实验1发现预视类型和语境预测性不存在交互作用。无论有没有预视信息,语境预测性均对早期词汇加工产生了影响。实验2采用※预视创设了更接近自然阅读的文本呈现模式,再次发现语境预测性效应不受预视类型的影响。研究结果表明,语境预测性对阅读中词汇加工的影响并不依赖于与目标词相同的预视信息,在没有预视信息情况下同样会表现出语境预测性对词汇加工的影响。

关键词: 语境预测性, 预视, 增量呈现文本范式, 眼动

Abstract: Most previous research have found contextual predictability effects eliminated in invalid preview which indicates contextual predictability effects depend on valid preview (like normal reading). The researchers manipulated invalid preview conditions by presenting various kinds of words or nonwords that were different from target words in parafoveal vision. It has been well established that invalid preview can cause various costs that may overwrite the contextual predictability effects. However, it is still hard to tell which is the cause of the elimination of contextual predictability effects in invalid preview conditions: the cost caused by invalid preview, or the absence of valid preview. Solving this problem is crucial to understand how the top-bottom predictability is influenced by bottom-top preview information. The present research investigated this effect with incremental paradigm by manipulating parafovea without preview information.
EyeLink 1000 Plus eye-tracker recorded participants' (40 participants in experiment 1 and 44 participants in experiment 2) right-eye gaze when they read the sentences that contained target words. Sentences were displayed in Song font in black-on-gray text on a 24-inch ASUS LCD monitor (1920×1080 pixels) with each character subtended approximately 0.9 degrees of visual angle. Experiment 1 was a 2(contextual predictability: high, low)×2(preview type: normal, none)within subjects design. Stimuli were 164 sets of Chinese sentences containing two interchangeable target words that were of either high or low contextual predictability. There was no preview information before directly fixed word in none preview condition, which was different from normal reading pattern and may influence the results. The aim of experiment 2 was to further verify and extend the findings from experiment 1 in a more normal reading form. In order to create a normal reading pattern with minimal interference for vocabulary processing, experiment 2 used meaningless and simple ※ as invalid preview. It was a 2 (contextual predictability: high, low) × 2(preview type: normal, ※) within subjects design.
The results showed clear effects of preview type in both experiments with shorter reading times and word skipping rate for normal preview condition, in line with findings from previous studies. It also replicated robust and reliable contextual predictability effects on eye movement time measures (first fixation duration, gaze duration, total reading time) in both experiment 1 and experiment 2, which were contributed to longer fixation durations for high predictability words than low predictability words. More importantly, the current results showed no interaction between contextual predictability and preview types on any measures in both experiment 1 and experiment 2. It suggested that the contextual predictability effects with none preview and ※ preview were similar to normal preview. The results of Bayes analyses also provided strong evidence for the additive models.
The key point of present study is the interaction between contextual predictability and preview type. The robust addictive effects suggest the elimination of contextual predictability effects in invalid previews is not due to the lack of valid preview but the overwrite of the invalid preview costs. Therefore, this research indicates contextual predictability influences word processing independently rather than depending on the valid preview information.

Key words: contextual predictability, preview, incremental revealing text paradigm, eye movement

赵赛男, 李琳, 张俐娟, 王敬欣. 预视对阅读中语境预测性效应的影响^*[J]. 心理科学, 2023, 46(4): 770-778.

Zhao Sainan, Li Lin, Zhang Lijuan, Wang Jingxin. The Influence of Preview on Contextual Predictability Effects during Reading[J]. Journal of Psychological Science, 2023, 46(4): 770-778.

参考文献

[1] 刘志方, 仝文, 张智君, 赵亚军. (2020). 语境预测性对阅读中字词加工过程的影响: 眼动证据. 心理学报, 52(9), 1031-1047.
[2] 王丽红, 闫国利. (2020). 阅读知觉广度研究中掩蔽刺激干扰效应的眼动研究. 心理学探新, 40(4), 318-324.
[3] 闫国利, 熊建萍, 臧传丽, 余莉莉, 崔磊, 白学军. (2013). 阅读研究中的主要眼动指标评述. 心理科学进展, 21(4), 589-605.
[4] 闫国利, 张巧明, 张兰兰, 白学军. (2013). 不同掩蔽材料对阅读知觉广度的影响. 心理科学, 36(6), 1317-1322.
[5] 张慢慢, 臧传丽, 白学军. (2020). 中文阅读中副中央凹预加工的范围与程度. 心理科学进展, 28(6), 871-882.
[6] Balota D. A., Pollatsek A., & Rayner K. (1985). The interaction of contextual constraints and parafoveal visual information in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 17(3), 364-390.
[7] Bates D., Mächler M., Bolker B., & Walker S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1-48.
[8] Chang M., Zhang K., Hao L. S., Zhao S. N., McGowan V. A., Warrington K. L., & Gunn S. C. (2020). Word predictability depends on parafoveal preview validity in Chinese reading. Visual Cognition, 28(1), 33-40.
[9] DeLong K. A., Urbach T. P., & Kutas M. (2005). Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience, 8(8), 1117-1121.
[10] Diaz, M. T., & Swaab, T. Y. (2007). Electrophysiological differentiation of phonological and semantic integration in word and sentence contexts. Brain Research, 1146, 85-100.
[11] Findlay, J. M., & Walker, R. (1999). A model of saccade generation based on parallel processing and competitive inhibition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 661-674.
[12] Morey, R. D., & Rouder, J. N. (2021). BayesFactor: Computation of bayes factors for common designs. R package version 0.9.12-4.3. https://rdrr.io/cran/BayesFactor/.
[13] Norris, D. (2006). The Bayesian reader: Explaining word recognition as an optimal Bayesian decision process. Psychological Review, 113(2), 327-357.
[14] Parker A. J., Kirkby J. A., & Slattery T. J. (2017). Predictability effects during reading in the absence of parafoveal preview. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 29(8), 902-911.
[15] Parker, A. J., & Slattery, T. J. (2019). Word frequency, predictability, and return-sweep saccades: Towards the modeling of eye movements during paragraph reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45(12), 1614-1633.
[16] Rayner, K. (1975). Parafoveal identification during a fixation in reading. Acta Psychologica, 39(4), 271-281.
[17] Rayner, K. (1978). Eye movements in reading and information processing. Psychological Bulletin, 85(3), 618-660.
[18] Rayner, K. & Well, A. D. (1996). Effects of contextual constraint on eye movements in reading: A further examination. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 3(4), 504-509.
[19] Schotter E. R., Angele B., & Rayner K. (2012). Parafoveal processing in reading. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 74, 5-35.
[20] Schotter E. R., Lee M., Reiderman M., & Rayner K. (2015). The effect of contextual constraint on parafoveal processing in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 83, 118-139.
[21] Staub, A. (2015). The effect of lexical predictability on eye movements in reading: Critical review and theoretical interpretation. Language and Linguistics Compass, 9(8), 311-327.
[22] Staub, A., & Goddard, K. (2019). The role of preview validity in predictability and frequency effects on eye movements in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(1), 110-127.
[23] Vandekerckhove J., Matzke D., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2015). Model comparison and the principle of parsimony. In J. R. Busemeyer, Z. Wang, J. T. Townsend, & A. Eidels (Eds.), The oxford handbook of computational and mathematical psychology (pp. 125-144). Oxford University Press.
[24] Veldre, A., & Andrews, S. (2018). Parafoveal preview effects depend on both preview plausibility and target predictability. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(1), 64-74.
[25] Warrington K. L., McGowan V. A., Paterson K. B., & White S. J. (2018). Effects of aging, word frequency, and text stimulus quality on reading across the adult lifespan: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(11), 1714-1729.
[26] Zhao S. N., Li L., Chang M., Wang J. X., & Paterson K. B. (2021). A further look at ageing and word predictability effects in Chinese reading: Evidence from one-character words. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74(1), 68-76.
[27] Zhao S. N., Li L., Chang M., Xu Q. Q., Zhang K., Wang J. X., & Paterson K. B. (2019). Older adults make greater use of word predictability in Chinese reading. Psychology and Aging, 34(6), 780-790.

预视对阅读中语境预测性效应的影响^*

The Influence of Preview on Contextual Predictability Effects during Reading

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

[1]	易佳琦, 刘志方, 仝文, 陈朝阳. 阅读中词边界影响词汇加工的年老化研究：眼动证据^*[J]. 心理科学, 2023, 46(4): 779-786.
[2]	岳阳, 姜英杰, 龙翼婷, 王凯玉. 奖赏预测误差对记忆辨别的影响：行为及眼动的证据^*[J]. 心理科学, 2023, 46(4): 817-824.
[3]	杜心雨马锦飞刘慧常若松. 车道情境与驾驶态度对驾驶员变道决策影响的眼动研究[J]. 心理科学, 2023, 46(3): 570-577.
[4]	章琴王亚. 心智游移的眼动追踪研究进展[J]. 心理科学, 2023, 46(3): 538-544.
[5]	何立媛白玉赵星刘妮娜王永胜吴捷. 汉语阅读中副中央凹信息加工的老化：来自词N+2预视的证据[J]. 心理科学, 2023, 46(3): 514-521.
[6]	陈永香朱莉琪. 两岁儿童利用身体部位信息快速识别动词[J]. 心理科学, 2023, 46(2): 355-362.
[7]	覃晓静王亚. 线索聚焦性影响前瞻记忆意向维持与提取：来自眼动追踪的证据[J]. 心理科学, 2023, 46(1): 34-41.
[8]	高晓雷李天贽白学军高蕾. 特质自我控制对食物线索注意偏向的影响及干预：来自眼动的证据[J]. 心理科学, 2023, 46(1): 25-33.
[9]	孙潇李梓晗梁超月南艳丽宋耀武石常秀. 利手与内隐左右空间情感效价关系的眼动研究[J]. 心理科学, 2023, 46(1): 19-24.
[10]	周丽姜红许岳宁戴世玮王影超闫国利贺荟中. 高功能孤独症幼儿是否存在粘滞性注意？ —来自空白重叠范式的证据[J]. 心理科学, 2022, 45(6): 1352-1359.
[11]	徐敏霞汪新建高峰强王鹏. 惩罚预期对羞怯个体注意偏向的影响[J]. 心理科学, 2022, 45(5): 1144-1151.
[12]	宋悉妮徐晓晨杨秀莉孙桂苓崔磊. 预期性、词频和笔画数对中文词汇识别影响的眼动研究[J]. 心理科学, 2022, 45(5): 1061-1068.
[13]	张明哲白学军. 词频与阅读方式对词跨行呈现效应的影响[J]. 心理科学, 2022, 45(4): 794-802.
[14]	张志超张慢慢章鹏符颖鹿子佳臧传丽*. 近二十年阅读眼动研究热点和趋势 ——基于CiteSpace的计量分析[J]. 心理科学, 2022, 45(4): 811-819.
[15]	兰泽波林梅宋子明孟珠姜琨闫国利. 听障大学生阅读中的语音激活：来自绕口令效应的证据[J]. 心理科学, 2022, 45(2): 491-497.