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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
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).
References
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/a0036396
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.
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/10.1037/0096-1523.31.5.954
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)00084-1
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.112.4.777
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/s13414-019-01689-5
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/a0034408
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/10.1037/0278-7393.16.3.417
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/a0033670
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/a0020233
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.2013.00033
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-D
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/10.1037/0096-1523.31.5.979
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/10.1037/0096-1523.24.1.20
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/10.1080/14640748908402353
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/10.1080/13506285.2013.879630
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/BF03208203
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/10.1037/0278-7393.16.5.825
Kennedy, A., & Pynte, J. (2005). Parafoveal-on-foveal effects in normal reading. Vision Research, 45, 153–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2004.07.037
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/10.1037/0278-7393.21.1.68
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/s11145-011-9349-0
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/10.1080/17470218.2012.658073
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/10.1080/13506280902986058
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.i13
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/10.1037/0096-1523.28.5.1213
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/a0029182
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/10.1080/20445911.2015.1008494
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/BF03203972
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)00442-5
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.12765
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.
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.2020.104452
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.
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/10.1037/0096-1523.18.1.148
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.2005.06.001
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)90005-5
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/10.1080/03640210701703824
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.105.1.125
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.2005.07.006
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/s11145-012-9369-4
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/10.1080/13506285.2014.881444
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/a0027735
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/a0034997
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/10.1177/1747021818819990
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.2013.09.002
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/xhp0000270
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/10.1080/713755859
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-z
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/10.1037/0096-1523.18.1.173
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/10.1080/14640748508400920
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.2004.02.005
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-x
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.2018.08.001
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.2015.03.025
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/10.1080/17470210903114858
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/a0019329
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.2014.05.007
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.16.3.561
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/s11145-010-9274-7
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-x
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.2019.104009
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/a0038097
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/s11145-010-9282-7
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.36.5.1033
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.
Funding
This study was funded by a Multi-Year Research Grant from the University of Macau (Grant number MYRG2020-00120-FSS).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pan, J., Yan, M. Preview frequency effects in reading: evidence from Chinese. Psychological Research 86, 2256–2265 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01628-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01628-w