The role of semantic and syntactic information in parafoveal prcoessing during reading

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.00011

Abstract

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.

Key words: parafoveal processing, semantic, syntactic, Chinese reading

CLC Number:

B842

ZANG Chuanli, LU Zijia, ZHANG Zhichao. The role of semantic and syntactic information in parafoveal prcoessing during reading[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2019, 27(1): 11-19.

References 40

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.
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. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-3710.2006.05.005 URL
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. doi: 10.3724.SP.J.1042.2011.00264 URL
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.
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.
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.
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. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2011.00249 URL
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. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2015.07.002 URL
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. doi: 10.1037/a0029294 URL pmid: 22799285
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. doi: 10.1037/a0036396 URL pmid: 4100595
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. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000257 URL pmid: 27123753
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. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.006 URL pmid: 22521255
15	Hohenstein S., & Kliegl R. (2013). Semantic preview benefit during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(1), 166-190. doi: 10.1037/a0033670 URL pmid: 23895448
16	Hohenstein S., & Kliegl R. (2013). Semantic preview benefit during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(1), 166-190. doi: 10.1037/a0033670 URL pmid: 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. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000128 URL pmid: 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. doi: 10.1037/a0022964 URL pmid: 3130834
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. doi: 10.1037//0278-7393.21.1.134 URL
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. doi: 10.1111/psyp.12765 URL pmid: 27680711
22	Rayner K. . (1975). The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 7(1), 65-81. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(75)90005-5 URL
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. doi: 10.1037/h0080111 URL pmid: 3502884
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. doi: 10.1037/a0036763 URL pmid: 24820439
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. doi: 10.3758/s13423-014-0582-9 URL pmid: 24496738
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. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2013.09.002 URL pmid: 24347813
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. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000281 URL pmid: 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. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2015.04.005 URL pmid: 4525713
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. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000270 URL pmid: 27732044
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. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173720 URL pmid: 5344498
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. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2017.12.002 URL
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. doi: 10.3758/BF03196782 URL pmid: 16524007
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. doi: 10.3758/PBR.16.3.561 URL pmid: 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. doi: 10.1037/a0026935 URL pmid: 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. doi: 10.1007/s11145-010-9281-8 URL pmid: 3337412
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. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2016.1272617 URL pmid: 27998212

[1]	LI Yadan, DU Ying, XIE Cong, LIU Chunyu, YANG Yilong, LI Yangping, QIU Jiang. A meta-analysis of the relationship between semantic distance and creative thinking [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2023, 31(4): 519-534.
[2]	YU Jiayu, JIN Yuxi, LIANG Dandan. Brain activation differences in lexical-semantics processing in autistic population: A meta-analysis of fMRI studies [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2022, 30(11): 2448-2460.
[3]	LI Lin, ZHAO Sainan, ZHANG Lijuan, WANG Jingxin. Understanding mechanisms of prediction error cost in Chinese reading for older adults [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2022, 30(1): 1-14.
[4]	FENG Jie, XU Juan, WU Xinchun. The influence of blindness on auditory vocabulary recognition [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2021, 29(12): 2131-2146.
[5]	LI Yutong, SUI Xue. Semantic association effect and its neural mechanism from the perspective of lexical co-occurrence frequency [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2021, 29(1): 112-122.
[6]	CHENG Shijing, HE Wenguang. The acquisition, development and aging of semantic cognition and related neural mechanism [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2020, 28(7): 1156-1163.
[7]	ZHANG Manman, ZANG Chuanli, BAI Xuejun. The spatial extent and depth of parafoveal pre-processing during Chinese reading [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2020, 28(6): 871-882.
[8]	LIU Wenjuan, DONG Jimei;, CUI Mengshu, CHEN Gongxiang. The contextual learning of the lexical meaning in adults’ native language learning [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2019, 27(9): 1574-1584.
[9]	ZHAO Jing. Skills of visual attention span in developmental dyslexia [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2019, 27(1): 20-26.
[10]	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.
[11]	YU Wenbo, LIANG Dandan. Word segmentation cues in the process of spoken language [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2018, 26(10): 1765-1774.
[12]	LI Lin, LIU Wen, SUI Xue. Prediction effect during syntactic processing and experimental evidence [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2017, 25(7): 1122-1131.
[13]	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.
[14]	ZHANG Jingjing, YANG Yufang. Influential factors in musical syntactic processing [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2017, 25(11): 1823-1830.
[15]	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.