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.
![](https://cdn.statically.io/img/media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs11145-010-9274-7/MediaObjects/11145_2010_9274_Fig1_HTML.gif)
![](https://cdn.statically.io/img/media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs11145-010-9274-7/MediaObjects/11145_2010_9274_Fig2_HTML.gif)
![](https://cdn.statically.io/img/media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs11145-010-9274-7/MediaObjects/11145_2010_9274_Fig3_HTML.gif)
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
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).
This interaction also reached significance in a LMM using a logic grouping factor (b = −0.06, SE = 0.03, t = −1.9).
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.
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.
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.
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Practical data analysis for the language sciences with R. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Balota, D. A., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (1985). The interaction of contextual constraints and parafoveal visual information in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 364–390.
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.
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.
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.
Engbert, R., & Kliegl, R. (2001). Mathematical models of eye movements in reading: A possible role for autonomous saccades. Biological Cybernetics, 85, 77–87.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hoosain, R. (1991). Psycholinguistic implications for linguistic relativity: A case study of Chinese. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
McConkie, G. W., & Rayner, K. (1975). The span of the effective stimulus during a fixation in reading. Perception & Psychophysics, 17, 578–586.
McDonald, S. A. (2005). Parafoveal preview benefit in reading is not cumulative across multiple saccades. Vision Research, 45, 1829–1834.
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.
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.
Nuthmann, A., Engbert, R., & Kliegl, R. (2005). Mislocated fixations during reading and the inverted optimal viewing position effect. Vision Research, 45, 2201–2217.
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.
Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1457–1506.
Rayner, K., Balota, D. A., & Pollatsek, A. (1986). Against parafoveal semantic preprocessing during eye fixations in reading. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 40, 473–483.
Rayner, K., & Bertera, J. H. (1979). Reading without a fovea. Science, 206, 468–469.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sereno, S. C., & Rayner, K. (1992). Fast priming during eye fixations in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 173–184.
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.
Van Orden, G. C. (1987). A rows is a rose: Spelling, sound and reading. Memory and Cognition, 15, 181–198.
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.
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.
Wickham, H. (2009). ggplot2. Elegant graphics for data analysis. Dordrecht: Springer.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Zhou, X., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (1999). Phonology, orthography, and lexical semantic activation in reading Chinese. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 579–606.
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.
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
Corresponding authors
Rights 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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9274-7