Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Preview fixation duration modulates identical and semantic preview benefit in Chinese reading

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Semantic preview benefit from parafoveal words is critical for proposals of distributed lexical processing during reading. Semantic preview benefit has been demonstrated for Chinese reading with the boundary paradigm in which unrelated or semantically related previews of a target word N + 1 are replaced by the target word once the eyes cross an invisible boundary located after word N (Yan et al., 2009); for the target word in position N + 2, only identical compared to unrelated-word preview led to shorter fixation times on the target word (Yan et al., in press). A reanalysis of these data reveals that identical and semantic preview benefits depend on preview duration (i.e., the fixation duration on the preboundary word). Identical preview benefit from word N + 1 increased with preview duration. The identical preview benefit was also significant for N + 2, but did not significantly interact with preview duration. The previously reported semantic preview benefit from word N + 1 was mainly due to single- or first-fixation durations following short previews. We discuss implications for notions of serial attention shifts and parallel distributed processing of words during reading.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We also tested the interaction between preview duration and preview benefits in a LMM with subgroup as two-level factor replacing the covariate (i.e., logarithm preview single fixation duration), which is more compatible with the traditional ANOVA route. In this analysis we failed to replicate the significant interactions (identical preview benefit in GD analysis: b = −0.09, SE = 0.07, t = −1.2; semantic preview benefit: b = 0.08, SE = 0.05, t = 1.5; b = 0.09, SE = 0.06, t = 1.5; for FFD and SFD analyses, respectively). We present this also as evidence that not everything is significant in LMM (as is sometimes surmised).

  2. This interaction also reached significance in a LMM using a logic grouping factor (b = −0.06, SE = 0.03, t = −1.9).

  3. Split of trials by preview single-fixation duration at 240 ms led to balanced groups in number of observations and more representatively demonstrative results: For semantic preview benefit with long previews, No. obs = 1,958, b = 0.04, SE = 0.02, t = 1.8 and b = 17 ms, SE = 9, t = 2.0; for analyses in log-transformed and original metrics, respectively; for orthographic preview benefit with long preview, b = 0.03, SE = 0.02, t = 1.5 and b = 16 ms, SE = 9, t = 1.8; for analyses in log-transformed and original metrics, respectively. Identical preview benefit was also numerically larger for long (b = 0.08, SE = 0.02, t = 3.5 and b = 30 ms, SE = 9, t = 3.4; for analyses in log-transformed and original metrics, respectively) than for short previews (b = 0.06, SE = 0.02, t = 2.7 and b = 19 ms, SE = 8, t = 2.4; for analyses in log-transformed and original metrics, respectively). All other t-values were smaller than 1.

References

  • Altarriba, J., Kambe, G., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (2001). Semantic codes are not used in integrating information across eye fixations in reading: Evidence from fluent Spanish-English bilinguals. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 875–890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angele, B., Slattery, T., Yang, J., Kliegl, R., & Rayner, K. (2008). Parafoveal processing in reading: Manipulating n + 1 and n + 2 previews simultaneously. Visual Cognition, 16, 697–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashby, J., Treiman, R., Kessler, B., & Rayner, K. (2006). Vowel processing in silent reading: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 416–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baayen, R. H. (2008). Practical data analysis for the language sciences with R. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balota, D. A., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (1985). The interaction of contextual constraints and parafoveal visual information in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 364–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, D. & Maechler, M. (2010). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-32 [Computer software].

  • Chace, K. H., Rayner, K., & Well, A. D. (2005). Eye movements and phonological parafoveal preview benefit: Effects of reading skill. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 209–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, H.-C., & Shu, H. (2001). Lexical activation during the recognition of Chinese characters: Evidence against early phonological activation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8(3), 511–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108, 204–256. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.108.1.204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engbert, R., & Kliegl, R. (2001). Mathematical models of eye movements in reading: A possible role for autonomous saccades. Biological Cybernetics, 85, 77–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engbert, R., & Kliegl, R. (2003). Microsaccades uncover the orientation of covert attention. Vision Research, 43(9), 1035–1045. doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(03)00084-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engbert, R., & Kliegl, R. (2010). Parallel graded attention models of reading. Manuscript submitted for publication.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feng, G., Miller, K., Shu, H., & Zhang, H. (2001). Rowed to recovery: The use of phonological and orthographic information in reading Chinese and English. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(4), 1079–1100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoosain, R. (1991). Psycholinguistic implications for linguistic relativity: A case study of Chinese. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inhoff, A. W. (1989). Parafoveal processing of words and saccade computation during eye fixations in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 544–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inhoff, A. W., & Liu, W. (1997). The perceptual span during the reading of Chinese text. In H. C. Chen (Ed.), Cognitive processing of Chinese and related Asian languages (pp. 243–266). Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(1), 20–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inhoff, A. W., Radach, R., & Eiter, B. (2006). Temporal overlap in the processing of successive words in reading. A reply to Pollatsek, Reichle, Rayner (2006). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 1490–1495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kliegl, R., Risse, S., & Laubrock, J. (2007). Preview benefit and parafoveal-on-foveal effects from word n + 2. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 1250–1255. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.33.5.1250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McConkie, G. W., & Rayner, K. (1975). The span of the effective stimulus during a fixation in reading. Perception & Psychophysics, 17, 578–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, S. A. (2005). Parafoveal preview benefit in reading is not cumulative across multiple saccades. Vision Research, 45, 1829–1834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meng, X., Jian, J., Shu, H., Tian, X., & Zhou, X. (2008). ERP correlates of the development of orthographical and phonological processing during Chinese sentence reading. Brain Research, 1219, 91–102. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2008.04.052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nuthmann, A., Engbert, R., & Kliegl, R. (2005). Mislocated fixations during reading and the inverted optimal viewing position effect. Vision Research, 45, 2201–2217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2010). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Wien: R Foundation for Statistical Computing [Computer software].

  • Rayner, K. (1975). The perceptual span and peripheral cues during reading. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 65–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1457–1506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, K., & Bertera, J. H. (1979). Reading without a fovea. Science, 206, 468–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, K., Juhasz, B. J., & Brown, S. J. (2007a). Do readers obtain preview benefit from word n + 2? A test of serial attention shift versus distributed lexical processing models of eye movement control in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 230–245. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.33.1.230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, K., Li, X., & Pollatsek, A. (2007b). Extending the E-Z Reader model of eye-movement control to Chinese readers. Cognitive Science, 31, 1021–1034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, K., White, S. J., Kambe, G., Miller, B., & Liversedge, S. P. (2003). On the processing of meaning from parafoveal vision during eye fixation in reading. In J. Hyönä, R. Radach, & H. Deubel (Eds.), The mind’s eye: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movements (pp. 213–234). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichle, E. D., Liversdege, S. P., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (2009). Encoding multiple words simultaneously in reading is implausible. Trends in Cognitive Science, 13, 115–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reilly, R., & Radach, R. (2003). Glenmore: An interactive activation model of eye movement control in reading. In J. Hyönä, R. Radach, & H. Deubel (Eds.), The mind's eye: Cognition and applied aspects of eye movement research (pp. 429–456). Oxford, England: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reilly, R., & Radach, R. (2006). Some empirical tests of an interactive activation model of eye movement control in reading. Cognitive Systems Research, 7, 34–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risse, S., Engbert, R., & Kliegl, R. (2008). Eye-movement control in reading: Experimental and corpus-analytic challenges for a computational model. In K. Rayner, D. Shen, X. Bai, & G. Yan (Eds.), Cognitive and cultural influences on eye movements (pp. 65–92). Tianjin: Tianjin People’s Publishing House/Psychology Press.

  • Risse, S., & Kliegl, R. (in press). Investigating age differences in the perceptual span with the N + 2-boundary paradigm. Psychology and Aging.

  • Schiepers, C. (1980). Response latency and accuracy in visual word recognition. Perception, & Psychophysics, 27, 71–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sereno, S. C., & Rayner, K. (1992). Fast priming during eye fixations in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 173–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, C.-H., & McConkie, G. W. (1995). The perceptual span in reading Chinese text: A moving window study. Poster session presented at the Eighth European Conference on Eye Movements, Derby, UK.

  • Tsai, J. L., & McConkie, G. W. (2003). Where do Chinese readers send their eyes? In J. Hyönä, R. Radach, & H. Deubel (Eds.), The mind’s eye: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research (pp. 159–176). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Orden, G. C. (1987). A rows is a rose: Spelling, sound and reading. Memory and Cognition, 15, 181–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Orden, G. C., Pennington, B. F., & Stone, G. O. (1990). Word identification in reading and the promise of subsymbolic psycholinguistics. Psychological Review, 97, 488–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, S. J., Rayner, K., & Liversedge, S. P. (2005). The influence of parafoveal word length and contextual constraint on fixation durations and word skipping in reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 466–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wickham, H. (2009). ggplot2. Elegant graphics for data analysis. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan, M., Kliegl, R., Shu, H., Pan, J., & Zhou, X. (in press). Parafoveal load of word n + 1 modulates preprocessing of word n + 2. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. doi: 10.1037/a0019329.

  • Yan, M., Richter, E. M., Shu, H., & Kliegl, R. (2009). Chinese readers extract semantic information from parafoveal words during reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 561–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, J., Wang, S., Tong, X., & Rayner, K. (2010). Semantic and plausibility effects on preview benefit during eye fixations in Chinese reading (submitted).

  • Yang, J., Wang, S., Xu, Y., & Rayner, K. (2009). Do Chinese readers obtain preview benefit from word n + 2? Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 1192–1204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yen, M.-H., Radach, R., Tzeng, O. J.-L., Hung, D. L., & Tsai, J.-L. (2009). Early parafoveal processing in reading Chinese sentences. Acta Psychologica, 131, 24–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yen, M.-H., Tsai, J.-L., Tzeng, O. J.-L., & Hung, D. L. (2008). Eye movements and parafoveal word processing in reading Chinese sentences. Memory and Cognition, 36, 1033–1045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, B., Zhang, W., Jing, Q., Peng, R., Zhang, G., & Simon, H. A. (1985). STM capacity for Chinese and English language materials. Memory & Cognition, 13, 202–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, X., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (1999). Phonology, orthography, and lexical semantic activation in reading Chinese. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 579–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, X., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2000). The relative time course of semantic and phonological activation in reading Chinese. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(5), 1245–1265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (KL 955/8, KL 955/15) to Reinhold Kliegl and Ralf Engbert and by China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (20080440008, 200902025) to Ming Yan. We thank Sven Hohenstein, Kevin Miller, Keith Rayner, and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Peking University, Yiheyuan Road 5th, 100871, Beijing, People’s Republic of China

    Ming Yan & Xiaolin Zhou

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Potsdam, Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 24-25, 14476, Potsdam, Germany

    Ming Yan, Sarah Risse & Reinhold Kliegl

Authors
  1. Ming Yan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarah Risse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xiaolin Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Reinhold Kliegl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Ming Yan or Reinhold Kliegl.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yan, M., Risse, S., Zhou, X. et al. Preview fixation duration modulates identical and semantic preview benefit in Chinese reading. Read Writ 25, 1093–1111 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9274-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9274-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation