Please wait a minute...
Advances in Psychological Science    2019, Vol. 27 Issue (1) : 11-19     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.00011
Regular Articles |
The role of semantic and syntactic information in parafoveal prcoessing during reading
ZANG Chuanli(),LU Zijia,ZHANG Zhichao
Academy of Psychology and Behavior, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300074, China
Download: PDF(561 KB)   HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks     Supporting Info
Guide   
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.

Keywords parafoveal processing      semantic      syntactic      Chinese reading     
ZTFLH:  B842  
Issue Date: 23 November 2018
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Chuanli ZANG
Zijia LU
Zhichao ZHANG
Cite this article:   
Chuanli ZANG,Zijia LU,Zhichao ZHANG. The role of semantic and syntactic information in parafoveal prcoessing during reading[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2019, 27(1): 11-19.
URL:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.00011     OR     http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/EN/Y2019/V27/I1/11
1 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.
url: http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/xlxdt201112001
2 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.
url: http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/xlxdt200605005
3 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.
url: http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/xlxdt201102014
4 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.
url: http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/xlxdt201003004
5 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.
url: http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/xlyxwyj200603014
6 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.
url: http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/lnsfdxxb-shkx201305010
7 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.
8 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.
url: http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/xlxb201103004
9 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.
url: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749596X15000947
10 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.
pmid: 22799285 url: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/xlm/39/2/649/
11 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.
pmid: 4100595 url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24707791
12 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.
13 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.
pmid: 27123753 url: http://pubmedcentralcanada.ca/pmcc/articles/PMC5085888/
14 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.
pmid: 22521255 url: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811912003874
15 Hohenstein S., & Kliegl R. (2013). Semantic preview benefit during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(1), 166-190.
pmid: 23895448 url: http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/23895448
16 Hohenstein S., & Kliegl R. (2013). Semantic preview benefit during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(1), 166-190.
pmid: 23895448 url: http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/23895448
17 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.
18 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.
pmid: 26010829 url: http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/26010829
19 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.
pmid: 3130834 url: http://pubmedcentralcanada.ca/pmcc/articles/PMC3130834/
20 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.
url: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/xlm/21/1/134/
21 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.
pmid: 27680711 url: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/psyp.12765/pdf
22 Rayner K. . (1975). The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 7(1), 65-81.
url: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0010028575900055
23 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.
24 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.
pmid: 3502884 url: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/cep/40/4/473/
25 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.
pmid: 24820439 url: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/xhp/40/4/1617/
26 Rayner K., Schotter E. R., & Drieghe D . (2014). Lack of semantic parafoveal preview benefit in reading revisited. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(4), 1067-1072.
pmid: 24496738 url: http://pubmedcentralcanada.ca/pmcc/articles/PMC4104250/?report=classic
27 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.
28 Schotter E.R . (2013). Synonyms provide semantic preview benefit in English. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(4), 619-633.
pmid: 24347813 url: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749596X13000740
29 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.
pmid: 27123754 url: http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/27123754
30 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.
pmid: 4525713 url: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749596X15000583
31 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.
pmid: 27732044 url: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-48460-001
32 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.
33 Snell J., Meeter M., & Grainger J . (2017). Evidence for simultaneous syntactic processing of multiple words during reading. Plos One, 12(3), e0173720.
pmid: 5344498 url: http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5344498/
34 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.
url: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749596X1730092X
35 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.
36 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.
pmid: 16524007 url: http://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03196782
37 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.
pmid: 19451385 url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19451385/
38 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.
pmid: 22369254 url: http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/22369254
39 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.
pmid: 3337412 url: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11145-010-9281-8
40 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.
pmid: 27998212 url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27998212
[1] ZHAO Jing. Skills of visual attention span in developmental dyslexia[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2019, 27(1): 20-26.
[2] YANG Jianfeng, DANG Min, ZHANG Rui, WANG Xiaojuan.  The neural circuit of semantic processing and its dynamic cooperation with the neural circuit of phonological processing in reading Chinese characters[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2018, 26(3): 381-390.
[3] YU Wenbo, LIANG Dandan. Word segmentation cues in the process of spoken language[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2018, 26(10): 1765-1774.
[4] LI Lin, LIU Wen, SUI Xue.  Prediction effect during syntactic processing and experimental evidence[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2017, 25(7): 1122-1131.
[5] LI Yugang; HUANG Ren; HUA Huimin; LI Xingshan. How do readers select the saccade targets?[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2017, 25(3): 404-412.
[6] ZHANG Jingjing, YANG Yufang.  Influential factors in musical syntactic processing[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2017, 25(11): 1823-1830.
[7] ZHAO Nan; GONG Yanyan; ZHAO Liang; CHEN Qiang; WANG Yonghui. The effect of action semantics, context and judgment task on object affordance[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2016, 24(11): 1747-1757.
[8] HE Wen-Guang. Cognitive Mechanism, Affecting Factors and Its Neural Basis in L2 Syntactic Processing[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2015, 23(9): 1540-1549.
[9] LI Songqing; ZHAO Qingbai; ZHOU Zhijin; ZHANG Yi. The Cognitive and Neural Mechanism of Text and Picture Processing in Multimedia Learning[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2015, 23(8): 1361-1370.
[10] ZHANG Xiuping; YANG Xiaohong; YANG Yufang. The Neural Mechanism and Influential Factors of Semantic Unification in Discourse Comprehension[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2015, 23(7): 1130-1141.
[11] CHANG Xin; WANG Pei. The Moderating Factors and Their Effect in Late Second Language Learners’ Syntactic Processing[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2015, 23(2): 225-233.
[12] CAI Lin;ZHANG Yaxu. EEG Time-Frequency Analysis of Syntactic and Semantic Processing in Sentence Comprehension[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2014, 22(7): 1112-1121.
[13] ZHANG Jijia;WANG Juan;CHEN Xinkui. Semantic Radicals’ Research in Twenty Years: Theoretical Exploration, Experimental Evidence and Processing Model[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2014, 22(3): 381-399.
[14] ZHANG Lingyan;JIN Tan;TIAN Zhaoxia. On the Time Axis of Morpho-semantic Activation: Form-then-meaning or Form-with-meaning?[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2013, 21(8): 1382-1389.
[15] JIA Guangzhen;LIU Youyi;SHU Hua;Fang Xiaoping. The Role of Noun Animacy in Language Processing[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2013, 21(8): 1371-1381.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
Copyright © Advances in Psychological Science
Support by Beijing Magtech