doi:

DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.00011

Advances in Psychological Science (心理科学进展) 2019/27:1 PP.11-19

The role of semantic and syntactic information in parafoveal prcoessing during reading


Abstract:
A debated issue in eye movement reading research concerns the extent to which readers preprocess words in the parafovea. There have been convergent findings that readers can extract visual and lexical (e.g., orthographic, phological) information from parafoveal words during reading. However, there is some controversy regarding whether readers can extract higher linguistic level (e.g., semantic and syntactic) information from the parafovea. We reviewed current findings in relation to parafoveal preview benefits during reading of alphabetic languages like English and non-alphabetic language like Chinese, mainly focusing on the processing of semantic and syntactic information of upcoming words in the parafovea, and how the current eye movement control models such as E-Z reader model and SWIFT model explain these findings. Finally, we discussed the implications of semantic and syntactic preview benefits for these models and considered future research directions in this field of eye movement control during reading.

Key words:parafoveal processing,semantic,syntactic,Chinese reading

ReleaseDate:2019-01-28 10:22:46



白学军, 刘娟, 臧传丽, 张慢慢, 郭晓峰, 闫国利. (2011). 中文阅读过程中的副中央凹预视效应. 心理科学进展, 19(12), 1721-1729.

陈庆荣, 邓铸. (2006). 阅读中的眼动控制理论与SWIFT模型. 心理科学进展, 14(5), 675-681.

陈庆荣, 王梦娟, 刘慧凝, 谭顶良, 邓铸, 徐晓东. (2011). 语言认知中眼动和ERP结合的理论、技术路径及其应用. 心理科学进展, 19(2), 264-273.

胡笑羽, 白学军, 闫国利. (2010). 副中央凹-中央凹效应的研究现状及展望. 心理科学进展, 18(3), 412-419.

刘丽萍, 刘海健, 胡笑羽. (2006). Swift-Ⅱ:阅读中眼跳发生的动力学模型. 心理与行为研究, 4(3), 230-235.

隋雪, 沈彤, 吴琼, 李莹. (2013). 阅读眼动控制模型的中文研究——串行和并行. 辽宁师范大学学报(社会科学版) 35(5), 672-679.

王春茂, 彭聃龄. (1999). 合成词加工中的词频,词素频率及语义透明度. 心理学报, 31(3), 266-273.

闫国利, 王丽红, 巫金根, 白学军. (2011). 不同年级学生阅读知觉广度及预视效益的眼动研究. 心理学报, 43(3), 249-263.

Abbott, M. J., & Staub, A. (2015). The effect of plausibility on eye movements in reading:Testing E-Z reader's null predictions. Journal of Memory and Language, 85, 76-87.

Angele, B., & Rayner, K. (2013). Processing the in the parafovea:Are articles skipped automatically? Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(2), 649-662.

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(4), 1181-1203.

Braze, D., Shankweiler, D., Ni, W., & Palumbo, L. C. (2002). Readers' eye movements distinguish anomalies of form and content. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31(1), 25-44.

Brothers, T., & Traxler, M. J. (2016). Anticipating syntax during reading:Evidence from the boundary change paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(12), 1894-1906.

Dimigen, O., Kliegl, R., & Sommer, W. (2012). Trans-saccadic parafoveal preview benefits in fluent reading:A study with fixation-related brain potentials. NeuroImage, 62(1), 381-393.

Hohenstein, S., & Kliegl, R. (2013). Semantic preview benefit during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(1), 166-190.

Hohenstein, S., & Kliegl, R. (2013). Semantic preview benefit during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(1), 166-190.

Jr Clifton, C., Ferreira, F., Henderson, J. M., Inhoff, A. W., Liversedge, S. P., Reichle, E. D., & Schotter, E. R. (2016). Eye movements in reading and information processing:Keithrayner's 40 year legacy. Journal of Memory and Language, 86, 1-19.

Kretzschmar, F., Schlesewsky, M., & Staub, A. (2015). Dissociating word frequency and predictability effects in reading:Evidence from coregistration of eye movements and EEG. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 41(6), 1648-1662.

Matsuki, K., Chow, T., Hare, M., Elman, J. L., Scheepers, C., & Mcrae, K. (2011). Event-based plausibility immediately influences on-line language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(4), 913-934.

McElree, B., & Griffith, T. (1995). Syntactic and thematic processing in sentence comprehension:Evidence for a temporal dissociation. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(1), 134-157.

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(12), 1784-1798.

Rayner, K. (1975). The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 7(1), 65-81.

Rayner, K. (2009). The Thirty Fifth Sir Frederick Bartlett Lecture:Eye movements and attention during reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1457-1506.

Rayner, K., Balota, D. A., & Pollatsek, A. (1986). Against parafoveal semantic preprocessing during eye fixations in reading. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 40(4), 473-483.

Rayner, K., & Schotter, E. R. (2014). Semantic preview benefit in reading English:The effect of initial letter capitalization. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 40(4), 1617-1628.

Rayner, K., Schotter, E. R., & Drieghe, D. (2014). Lack of semantic parafoveal preview benefit in reading revisited. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(4), 1067-1072.

Reichle, E. D. (2011). Serial-attention models of reading. In S. P. Liversedge, I. D. Gilchrist, & S. Everling (Eds.), Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford handbook on eye movements (pp. 767-786). New York, Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Schotter, E. R. (2013). Synonyms provide semantic preview benefit in English. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(4), 619-633.

Schotter, E. R., & Jia, A. (2016). Semantic and plausibility preview benefit effects in English:Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(12), 1839-1866.

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.

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(12), 2039-2067.

Schotter, E. R., Reichle, E. D., & Rayner, K. (2014). Rethinking parafoveal processing in reading:Serial-attention models can account for semantic preview benefit and N+2 preview effects. Visual Cognition, 22(3-4), 309-333.

Snell, J., Meeter, M., & Grainger, J. (2017). Evidence for simultaneous syntactic processing of multiple words during reading. Plos One, 12(3), e0173720.

Veldre, A., & Andrews, S. (2018). Beyond cloze probability:Parafoveal processing of semantic and syntactic information during reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 100, 1-17.

Wang, S., Chen, H-C., Yang, J., & Mo, L. (2008). Immediacy of integration in discourse comprehension:Evidence from Chinese readers' eye movements. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(2), 241-257.

White, S. J., Rayner, K., & Liversedge, S. P. (2005). Eye movements and the modulation of parafoveal processing by foveal processing difficulty:A reexamination. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(5), 891-896.

Yan, M., Richter, E. M., Shu, H., & Kliegl, R. (2009). Readers of Chinese extract semantic information from parafoveal words. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(3), 561-566.

Yan, M., Zhou, W., Shu, H., & Kliegl, R. (2012). Lexical and sublexical semantic preview benefits in Chinese reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(4), 1069-1075.

Yang, J., Wang, S., Tong, X., & Rayner, K. (2012). Semantic and plausibility effects on preview benefit during eye fixations in Chinese reading. Reading and Writing, 25(5), 1031-1052.

Zang, C., Zhang, M., Bai, X., Yan, G., Angele, B., & Liversedge, S. P. (2018). Skipping of the very-high-frequency structural particle de, in Chinese reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(1), 152-160.