Please wait a minute...
Acta Psychologica Sinica    2019, Vol. 51 Issue (9) : 969-981     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00969
Reports of Empirical Studies |
Preview processing of between words and within words in Chinese reading: No word highlighting effect
GUAN Yiyun1,SONG Xini1,ZHENG Yuwei2,ZHANG Yingliang1,CUI Lei1()
1. School of Psychology, Shandong Normal University, Jinan 250358, China
2. School of Education and Psychological Science, Jinan University, Jinan 250022, China
Download: PDF(923 KB)   HTML Review File (1 KB) 
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks     Supporting Info
Guide   
Abstract  

In the present study, readers’ eye movements were recorded to investigate the influence of word highlighting information on the preview processing of between-words and within-words.

Most studies on preview effects have found that the size of the preview effects is 30~50 ms. Hy?n? et al. (2004) examined parafoveal processing of the end lexeme of a long Finnish compound while the beginning lexeme of the compound was fixated. And the results found 80ms preview effect which was more pronounced than previous literatures. The larger preview benefit may have been due to the fact that the preview word is part of one larger linguistic unit (within-words); however, in previous experiments, the preview word and the current fixated word belong to different words (between-words). Consequently, researchers speculated that within-words might induce larger preview effect than that of between-words. Some researchers used compound words (within-words) and phrases (between-words) to further explore this issue and they found that there were no differences between within-words and between-words in preview effects. The results cannot exclude the possible explanation that larger preview effect for within-words is caused by the higher syntactic expectations of nouns comes from adjectives in phrases inducing larger preview effect and then counterbalances the possible differences between the two kinds of words. The present study adopted the boundary paradigm to probe the preview processing differences between within-words and between-words. In the present study, the first character of a two-character compounds (between-words) and the second character of a two-character compounds (within-words) was manipulated to be presented normally or replaced by a pseudo-character for previews. Moreover, word highlighting sentence and non-word highlighting sentence were introduced to examine whether the word boundary information could exert different influences on the preview processing of between-words and within-words. Marking word boundary by word highlighting has its unique advantages. Most of all, compared with word spaces, word highlighting can not only keep the same sentence length meanwhile providing the word boundary information but also control the same word lateral masking on different conditions.

Firstly, the results indicated that the preview effect for between-word was smaller than that of within-word. The results were consistent with the results of Hy?n? et al. (2004), which showed that the morphological information of target word could impact on preview processing. Secondly, we found that there were no differences among normal condition, highlighting condition and non-word highlighting condition. Even so, we did not found the significant influences of word boundary demarcation for preview processing, the possible benefit effect of word boundary still could not be ruled out thoroughly. As Bai et al. (2008) pointed out that readers are familiar with the text without any word boundary signals in normal reading; consequently, the null effect between normal and word boundary text may show a priming effect on word boundary condition, which is the one readers are not familiar with. Thirdly, the results showed that word boundary information had similar effects on within-words and between-words.

Results of the present study indicated that word morphological information could affect its preview processing; however, word boundary information do not necessarily facilitate preview processing for both between-words and within-words. The possible explanation may be that word segmentation and word recognition occur simultaneously. These results are consistent with the model of word segmentation and word recognition.

Keywords word boundary      between words      within words      preview processing      word segmentation     
ZTFLH:  B482  
Fund: 
Corresponding Authors: Lei CUI     E-mail: cuilei_cn@163.com
Issue Date: 24 July 2019
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
GUAN Yiyun
SONG Xini
ZHENG Yuwei
ZHANG Yingliang
CUI Lei
Cite this article:   
GUAN Yiyun,SONG Xini,ZHENG Yuwei, et al. Preview processing of between words and within words in Chinese reading: No word highlighting effect[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(9): 969-981.
URL:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00969     OR     http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/Y2019/V51/I9/969
词汇属性 词间词 词内词
词频(次/百万)* 8.45 8.80
笔画数(笔) 16.25 16.68
目标字的位置频率 39% 42%
  
  
  
眼动指标 词语类型 正常呈现 词间阴影 非词阴影
I D PB I D PB I D PB
首次注视时间* 词内词 231 273 42 235 270 35 221 269 49
词间词 225 251 25 218 238 21 229 254 26
凝视时间* 词内词 243 303 60 250 305 55 236 301 65
词间词 234 272 38 232 258 27 238 281 44
回视路径时间* 词内词 291 406 115 302 381 78 289 419 130
词间词 286 344 58 283 322 39 285 341 57
跳读率 词内词 0.17 0.15 -0.02 0.21 0.15 -0.06 0.17 0.16 -0.02
词间词 0.19 0.19 -0.001 0.24 0.24 -0.001 0.22 0.22 -0.003
  
  
眼动指标 词语类型 正常呈现 词间阴影 非词阴影
I D PB I D PB I D PB
首次注视时间* 词内词 231 273 42 235 270 35 221 269 49
词间词 227 249 22 226 242 16 230 247 16
凝视时间* 词内词 243 303 60 250 305 55 236 301 65
词间词 324 381 57 322 370 47 355 420 64
回视路径时间* 词内词 291 406 115 302 381 78 289 419 130
词间词 393 497 103 394 469 73 441 517 76
跳读率 词内词 0.17 0.15 -0.2 0.21 0.15 -0.06 0.17 0.16 -0.02
词间词 0.05 0.04 -0.01 0.05 0.05 -0.002 0.06 0.04 -0.02
  
1 Bai X., Yan G., Liversedge S. P., Zang C., & Rayner K . ( 2008). Reading spaced and unspaced Chinese text: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.34( 5), 1277-1287.
2 Cui L., Drieghe D., Bai X., Yan G., & Liversedge S. P . ( 2014). Parafoveal preview benefit in unspaced and spaced Chinese reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(11),2172-2188.
3 Cui L., Drieghe D., Yan G., Bai X ., Chi, H. & Liversedge, S. P. ( 2013). Parafoveal processing across different lexical constituents in Chinese reading.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66,403-416.
4 Drieghe D., Brysbaert M., & Desmet T . ( 2005). Parafoveal-on-foveal effects on eye movements in text reading: Does an extra space make a difference. Vision Research, 45(13),1693-1706.
5 Drieghe D., Cui L., Yan G., Bai X., Chi H., & Liversedge S. P . ( 2017). The morphosyntactic structure of compound words influences parafoveal processing in Chinese reading.. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(1),1-28.
6 Drieghe D., Fitzsimmons G., & Liversedge S. P . ( 2017). Parafoveal preview effects in reading unspaced text. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance.43( 10), 1701-1716.
7 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.
8 Engbert R., Nuthmann A., Richter E. M., & Kliegl R . ( 2005). SWIFT: A dynamical model of saccade generation during reading.Psychological Review, 112,777-813.
9 Hoosain R. ( 1992). Psychological reality of the word in Chinese. In H.-C. Chen & O.J.L. Tzeng (Eds.), Language processing in Chinese (pp. 111-130). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland.
10 Hy?n? J., ( 1995). Do irregular letter combinations attract readers' attention? Evidence from fixation locations in words.[J] ournal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance.21( 1), 68-81.
11 Hy?n? J., Bertram R., & Pollatsek A . ( 2004). Are long compound words identified serially via their constituents? Evidence from an eye movement-contingent display change study. Memory & Cognition, 32(4),523-532.
12 Juhasz B. J., Pollatsek A., Hy?n? J., Drieghe D., & Rayner K . ( 2009). Parafoveal processing within and between words. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(7),1356-1376.
13 Li X., Rayner K., & Cave K. R . ( 2009). On the segmentation of Chinese words during reading. Cognitive Psychology, 58(4),525-552.
14 Li N., Wang S., Mo L., & Kliegl R . ( 2017). Contextual constraint and preview time modulate the semantic preview effect: Evidence from chinese sentence reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(1),1-32.
15 Liu Y., Reichle E. D., & Li X . ( 2015). Parafoveal processing affects outgoing saccade length during the reading of Chinese. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning.Memory, and Cognition, 41(4),1229-1236.
16 Liu Y., Reichle E. D., & Li X . ( 2016). The effect of word frequency and parafoveal preview on saccade length during the reading of Chinese. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(7),1008-1025.
17 Morris R. K., Rayner K., & Pollatsek A . ( 1990). Eye movement guidance in reading: The role of parafoveal letter and space information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16(2),268-281.
18 Perea M., &Acha J. , ( 2009). Space information is important for reading. Vision Research, 49(15),1994-2000.
19 Perea M., Tejero P., & Winskel H . ( 2015). Can colours be used to segment words when reading?. Acta Psychologica, 159,8-13.
20 Pollatsek A. & Rayner K. , ( 1982). Eye movement control in reading: The role of word boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8(6),817-833.
21 Rayner K. ( 1975). The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 7(1),65-81.
22 Rayner K. ( 1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3),372-422.
23 Rayner K. ( 2009). The thirty fifth Sir Frederick Bartlett lecture: Eye movements and attention in reading,scene perception, and visual search.. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62,1457-1506.
24 Rayner K., Ashby J., Pollatsek A., & Reichle E. D . ( 2004). The effects of frequency and predictability on eye fixations in reading: Lmplications for the E-Z Reader model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30(4),720-732.
25 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.
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.
27 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.
28 Rayner K., White S. J., Kambe G., Miller B., & Liversedge S. P . ( 2003). On the processing of meaning from parafoveal vision during eye fixations in reading. In J. Hy?n?, R. Radach, & H. Deubel (Eds.), Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research (pp. 213-234). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
29 Schotter E.R . ( 2013). Synonyms provide semantic preview benefit in English. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(4),619-633.
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.
31 Sheridan H., Reichle E. D., & Reingold E. M . ( 2016). Why does removing inter-word spaces produce reading deficits? The role of parafoveal processing. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review.23( 5), 1543-1552.
32 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( 3), 666-689.
33 Wang S., Tong X., Yang J., & Leng Y . ( 2009). Semantic codes are obtained before word fixation in Chinese sentence reading: Evidence from eye-movements. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 41(3),220-232.
34 [ 王穗苹, 佟秀红, 杨锦绵, 冷英 . ( 2009). 中文句子阅读中语义信息对眼动预视效应的影响. 心理学报.41( 3), 220-232.]
35 Wei W., Li X., & Pollatsek A . ( 2013). Word properties of a fixated region affect outgoing saccade length in Chinese reading.Vision Research, 80,1-6.
36 Yan M., Kliegl R., Richter E ., Nuthmann, A. & Shu, H. ( 2010). Flexible saccade-target selection in Chinese reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(4),705-725.
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.
38 Yan G. L., Xiong J. P., Zang C. L., Yu L. L., Cui L., & Bai X. J . ( 2013). Review of Eye-movement Measures in Reading Research. Advances in Psychological Science.21( 4), 589-605.
39 [ 闫国利, 熊建萍, 臧传丽, 余莉莉, 崔磊, 白学军 . ( 2013). 阅读研究中的主要眼动指标评述. 心理科学进展.21( 4), 589-605.]
40 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, 35(4),1192-1204.
41 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(1),24-33.
42 Zang C., Wang Y., Bai X., Yan G., Drieghe D., & Liversedge S. P . ( 2016). The use of probabilistic lexicality cues for word segmentation in Chinese reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(3),548-560.
[1] BAI Xuejun,MA Jie,LI Xin,LIAN Kunyu,TAN Ke,YANG Yu,LIANG Feifei. The efficiency and improvement of novel word’s learning in Chinese children with developmental dyslexia during natural reading[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(4): 471-483.
[2] LIU Zhifang; ZHANG Zhijun; YANG Guifang. Test the activation model of transforming characters to words in Chinese reading: Evidence from delay word-boundary effects[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(9): 1082-1092.
[3] SU Heng; LIU Zhifang; CAO Liren. The effects of word frequency and word predictability in preview and their implications for word segmentation in Chinese reading: Evidence from eye movements[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(6): 625-636.
[4] LIU Zhifang;YAN Guoli;ZHANG Zhijun;PAN Yun;YANG Guifang. Preview Benefits and Word Segmentations When Reading Chinese[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2013, 45(6): 614-625.
[5] ZHANG Zhi-Jun,LIU Zhi-Fang,ZHAO Ya-Jun,JI Jing. The Locations of Word Segmentation in Chinese Reading: Research Based on the Eye-Movement-Contingent Display Technique[J]. , 2012, 44(1): 51-62.
[6]

BAI Xue-Jun,GUO Zhi-Ying,GU Jun-Juan,CAO Yu-Xiao,YAN Guo-Li

. Effect of Word Segmentation Cues on Japanese-Chinese Bilingual’s Chinese Reading: Evidence from Eye Movements[J]. , 2011, 43(11): 1273-1282.
[7] SHEN De-Li,BAI Xue-Jun,ZANG Chuan-Li,YAN Guo-Li,FENG Ben-Cai,FAN Xiao-Hong. Effect of Word Segmentation on Beginners’ Reading: Evidence from Eye Movements[J]. , 2010, 42(02): 159-172.
[8] Yang Yufang, Sun Jian (Institute of psychology, Chinese Academy of Siences). DISTRIBUTION OF WORD SEGMENTATION INFORMATION IN SENTENCE[J]. , 1994, 26(01): 8-13.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
Copyright © Acta Psychologica Sinica
Support by Beijing Magtech