Abstract: In the process of the cognition, the inhibition is defined as the mechanism of preventing the irrelevant information from entering the working memory or eliminating the irrelevant information from the working memory. In the age-related research, Connelly et al (1991) found that the individual differences in inhibition mainly happened in the former role of inhibitory processes, however, Dywan et al (1995) found that the individual differences in inhibition mainly took place in the latter role of inhibitory processes. Both of the above conclusions were supported by eye-tracking researches. Some researches indicated that individuals with different cognitive styles (field-dependence/ independence) have the difference in the inhibiting capacity. But does the difference in the inhibition of individuals with different cognitive styles take place in the former or in the latter role of inhibitory processes? If the meaning and location of distracting material are changed, then what about the inhibition? By using eye-tracking technology, we intend to answer these questions. We used the Embedded Figure Test to divide participants into field dependence and independence. Participants first read the short articles and then answered questions following each text. At the same time, some indexes of their eye-movements were recorded.
In experiment 1, the fixed design is 2 (cognitive styles: field dependence, field independence) × 3 (distraction: true words, false words, no distraction). In experiment 2, the fixed design is 2 (cognitive styles: field dependence, field independence) × 3 (distraction location: predictable location, unpredictable location, no distraction). In both experiment 1 and experiment 2, the results indicated that reading efficiency of FI was significantly higher than that of FD, but there was no significant difference between FD and FI in the fixation duration and the number of fixation of distractions. These findings support the conclusion which was found by Dywan et al. While the other results indicated that, compared to distraction of the meaningless material, the meaningful material was harder to inhibit, for such material was much more absorbing to the readers; compared to the distraction of the predictable location, the distraction of unpredictable location was harder to inhibit, as it was harder for the readers to avoid this distraction.

Key words: reading, inhibition, distracting information, cognitive styles, eye-movements