心理学报 ›› 2022, Vol. 54 ›› Issue (5): 441-452.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.00441
• 研究报告 • 下一篇
鹿子佳1, 符颖1, 张慢慢1, 臧传丽1(), 白学军1()
收稿日期:
2021-05-19
发布日期:
2022-03-23
出版日期:
2022-05-25
通讯作者:
臧传丽,白学军
E-mail:bxuejun@126.com;zangchuanli@163.com
基金资助:
LU Zijia1, FU Ying1, ZHANG Manman1, ZANG Chuanli1(), BAI Xuejun1()
Received:
2021-05-19
Online:
2022-03-23
Published:
2022-05-25
Contact:
ZANG Chuanli,BAI Xuejun
E-mail:bxuejun@126.com;zangchuanli@163.com
摘要:
本研究采用边界范式, 通过操纵预视词和目标词的词类一致性探讨中文阅读中副中央凹中能否加工词类信息。实验采用单因素3水平设计, 三种预视条件: 一致预视、词类不违背预视、词类违背预视。对实验数据进行线性混合模型及贝叶斯分析发现: 词类违背条件和词类不违背条件下对目标词的注视时间和注视概率没有显著差异, 即无词类信息的预视效应。该结果倾向于支持序列注意转移模型, 眼动控制模型的未来发展应更加关注灵活性和普适性。
中图分类号:
鹿子佳, 符颖, 张慢慢, 臧传丽, 白学军. (2022). 中文词类信息在副中央凹中的加工. 心理学报, 54(5), 441-452.
LU Zijia, FU Ying, ZHANG Manman, ZANG Chuanli, BAI Xuejun. (2022). Parafoveal processing of word class information in Chinese reading. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(5), 441-452.
预视条件 | 预视词词类 | 词类熟悉性(用作名词的概率) | 词频 | 笔画数 | 语音相关性 | 语义相关性 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1一致预视 | 名词 | 95.74% (10.07%) | 127.35 (182.55) | 9.04 (3.37) | ||
2词类不违背预视 | 名词 | 94.74% (10.39%) | 124.05 (164.33) | 9.07 (2.67) | 1.19 (0.19) | 1.23 (0.29) |
3词类违背预视 | 动词 | 2.25% (6.16%) | 121.38 (134.95) | 9.24 (2.55) | 1.21 (0.18) | 1.17 (0.24) |
表1 预视词词类熟悉性、词频、笔画数的平均数和标准差
预视条件 | 预视词词类 | 词类熟悉性(用作名词的概率) | 词频 | 笔画数 | 语音相关性 | 语义相关性 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1一致预视 | 名词 | 95.74% (10.07%) | 127.35 (182.55) | 9.04 (3.37) | ||
2词类不违背预视 | 名词 | 94.74% (10.39%) | 124.05 (164.33) | 9.07 (2.67) | 1.19 (0.19) | 1.23 (0.29) |
3词类违背预视 | 动词 | 2.25% (6.16%) | 121.38 (134.95) | 9.24 (2.55) | 1.21 (0.18) | 1.17 (0.24) |
预视条件 | 句子 |
---|---|
1一致预视 | 今天我准备炸些¦虾来招待我的好朋友们。 |
2词类不违背预视 | 今天我准备炸些¦狼来招待我的好朋友们。 |
3词类违背预视 | 今天我准备炸些¦割来招待我的好朋友们。 |
表2 实验材料举例(加黑字体为目标词和预视词)
预视条件 | 句子 |
---|---|
1一致预视 | 今天我准备炸些¦虾来招待我的好朋友们。 |
2词类不违背预视 | 今天我准备炸些¦狼来招待我的好朋友们。 |
3词类违背预视 | 今天我准备炸些¦割来招待我的好朋友们。 |
分析指标 | 1一致预视 | 2词类不违背预视 | 3词类违背预视 |
---|---|---|---|
首次注视时间 | 228 (44) | 230 (48) | 232 (47) |
凝视时间 | 231 (46) | 235 (50) | 235 (49) |
回视路径时间 | 277 (96) | 302 (108) | 301 (126) |
跳读率 | 0.59 (0.19) | 0.57 (0.17) | 0.57 (0.18) |
回视出比率 | 0.14 (0.21) | 0.18 (0.21) | 0.18 (0.23) |
回视入比率 | 0.12 (0.18) | 0.26 (0.22) | 0.22 (0.22) |
表3 目标前字眼动指标平均数和标准差
分析指标 | 1一致预视 | 2词类不违背预视 | 3词类违背预视 |
---|---|---|---|
首次注视时间 | 228 (44) | 230 (48) | 232 (47) |
凝视时间 | 231 (46) | 235 (50) | 235 (49) |
回视路径时间 | 277 (96) | 302 (108) | 301 (126) |
跳读率 | 0.59 (0.19) | 0.57 (0.17) | 0.57 (0.18) |
回视出比率 | 0.14 (0.21) | 0.18 (0.21) | 0.18 (0.23) |
回视入比率 | 0.12 (0.18) | 0.26 (0.22) | 0.22 (0.22) |
分析指标 | 一致预视效应(1 VS. 2) | 词类预视效应(2 VS. 3) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
b | SE | t/z | b | SE | t/z | |
首次注视时间 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.51 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.64 |
凝视时间 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.51 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.35 |
回视路径时间 | 0.07 | 0.03 | 2.40* | -0.02 | 0.03 | -0.59 |
跳读率 | -0.09 | 0.08 | -1.18 | -0.02 | 0.08 | -0.23 |
回视出比率 | 0.38 | 0.16 | 2.33* | -0.08 | 0.15 | -0.53 |
回视入比率 | 1.05 | 0.16 | 6.62*** | -0.21 | 0.14 | -1.55 |
表4 不同预视水平在目标前字各指标上的固定效应估计值
分析指标 | 一致预视效应(1 VS. 2) | 词类预视效应(2 VS. 3) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
b | SE | t/z | b | SE | t/z | |
首次注视时间 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.51 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.64 |
凝视时间 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.51 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.35 |
回视路径时间 | 0.07 | 0.03 | 2.40* | -0.02 | 0.03 | -0.59 |
跳读率 | -0.09 | 0.08 | -1.18 | -0.02 | 0.08 | -0.23 |
回视出比率 | 0.38 | 0.16 | 2.33* | -0.08 | 0.15 | -0.53 |
回视入比率 | 1.05 | 0.16 | 6.62*** | -0.21 | 0.14 | -1.55 |
分析指标 | 1一致预视 | 2词类不违背预视 | 3词类违背预视 |
---|---|---|---|
首次注视时间 | 241 (56) | 309 (94) | 297 (80) |
凝视时间 | 248 (63) | 336 (120) | 331 (102) |
回视路径时间 | 307 (116) | 430 (161) | 437 (167) |
跳读率 | 0.61 (0.17) | 0.54 (0.20) | 0.56 (0.22) |
回视出比率 | 0.16 (0.20) | 0.27 (0.24) | 0.30 (0.26) |
回视入比率 | 0.10 (0.18) | 0.17 (0.20) | 0.13 (0.17) |
表5 目标词眼动指标平均数和标准差
分析指标 | 1一致预视 | 2词类不违背预视 | 3词类违背预视 |
---|---|---|---|
首次注视时间 | 241 (56) | 309 (94) | 297 (80) |
凝视时间 | 248 (63) | 336 (120) | 331 (102) |
回视路径时间 | 307 (116) | 430 (161) | 437 (167) |
跳读率 | 0.61 (0.17) | 0.54 (0.20) | 0.56 (0.22) |
回视出比率 | 0.16 (0.20) | 0.27 (0.24) | 0.30 (0.26) |
回视入比率 | 0.10 (0.18) | 0.17 (0.20) | 0.13 (0.17) |
分析指标 | 一致预视效应(1 VS. 2) | 词类预视效应(2 VS. 3) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
b | SE | t/z | b | SE | t/z | |
首次注视时间 | 0.23 | 0.03 | 8.27*** | -0.03 | 0.03 | -0.90 |
凝视时间 | 0.27 | 0.03 | 8.38*** | -0.01 | 0.03 | -0.27 |
回视路径时间 | 0.34 | 0.03 | 11.52*** | -0.00 | 0.03 | -0.14 |
跳读率 | -0.31 | 0.08 | -3.91*** | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.85 |
回视出比率 | 0.85 | 0.15 | 5.62*** | 0.09 | 0.13 | 0.71 |
回视入比率 | 0.76 | 0.18 | 4.20*** | -0.28 | 0.16 | -1.77 |
表6 不同预视水平在目标词各指标上的固定效应估计值
分析指标 | 一致预视效应(1 VS. 2) | 词类预视效应(2 VS. 3) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
b | SE | t/z | b | SE | t/z | |
首次注视时间 | 0.23 | 0.03 | 8.27*** | -0.03 | 0.03 | -0.90 |
凝视时间 | 0.27 | 0.03 | 8.38*** | -0.01 | 0.03 | -0.27 |
回视路径时间 | 0.34 | 0.03 | 11.52*** | -0.00 | 0.03 | -0.14 |
跳读率 | -0.31 | 0.08 | -3.91*** | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.85 |
回视出比率 | 0.85 | 0.15 | 5.62*** | 0.09 | 0.13 | 0.71 |
回视入比率 | 0.76 | 0.18 | 4.20*** | -0.28 | 0.16 | -1.77 |
分析指标 | 1一致预视 | 2词类不违背预视 | 3词类违背预视 |
---|---|---|---|
首次注视时间 | 229 (42) | 256 (63) | 253 (44) |
凝视时间 | 234 (45) | 264 (65) | 260 (46) |
回视路径时间 | 323 (130) | 460 (203) | 482 (208) |
跳读率 | 0.56 (0.18) | 0.50 (0.20) | 0.50 (0.18) |
回视出比率 | 0.20 (0.20) | 0.40 (0.27) | 0.46 (0.28) |
回视入比率 | 0.10 (0.16) | 0.12 (0.16) | 0.09 (0.12) |
表7 目标后字眼动指标平均数和标准差
分析指标 | 1一致预视 | 2词类不违背预视 | 3词类违背预视 |
---|---|---|---|
首次注视时间 | 229 (42) | 256 (63) | 253 (44) |
凝视时间 | 234 (45) | 264 (65) | 260 (46) |
回视路径时间 | 323 (130) | 460 (203) | 482 (208) |
跳读率 | 0.56 (0.18) | 0.50 (0.20) | 0.50 (0.18) |
回视出比率 | 0.20 (0.20) | 0.40 (0.27) | 0.46 (0.28) |
回视入比率 | 0.10 (0.16) | 0.12 (0.16) | 0.09 (0.12) |
分析指标 | 一致预视效应(1 VS. 2) | 词类预视效应(2 VS. 3) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
b | SE | t/z | b | SE | t/z | |
首次注视时间 | 0.09 | 0.02 | 4.77*** | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.13 |
凝视时间 | 0.10 | 0.02 | 5.34*** | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
回视路径时间 | 0.32 | 0.03 | 10.22*** | 0.06 | 0.03 | 2.11* |
跳读率 | -0.29 | 0.08 | -3.85*** | 0.02 | 0.08 | 0.20 |
回视出比率 | 1.08 | 0.13 | 8.12*** | 0.28 | 0.11 | 2.43* |
回视入比率 | 0.19 | 0.18 | 1.04 | -0.16 | 0.18 | -0.91 |
表8 不同预视水平在目标后字各指标上的固定效应估计值
分析指标 | 一致预视效应(1 VS. 2) | 词类预视效应(2 VS. 3) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
b | SE | t/z | b | SE | t/z | |
首次注视时间 | 0.09 | 0.02 | 4.77*** | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.13 |
凝视时间 | 0.10 | 0.02 | 5.34*** | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
回视路径时间 | 0.32 | 0.03 | 10.22*** | 0.06 | 0.03 | 2.11* |
跳读率 | -0.29 | 0.08 | -3.85*** | 0.02 | 0.08 | 0.20 |
回视出比率 | 1.08 | 0.13 | 8.12*** | 0.28 | 0.11 | 2.43* |
回视入比率 | 0.19 | 0.18 | 1.04 | -0.16 | 0.18 | -0.91 |
[1] |
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 |
[2] |
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 |
[3] |
Ashby, J., Treiman, R., Kessler, B., & Rayner, K. (2006). Vowel processing during silent reading: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(2), 416-424.
doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.32.2.416 URL |
[4] | Bai, X. J., Liu, J., Zang, C. L., Zhang, M. M., Guo, X. F., & Yan, G. L. (2011) The advance of parafoveal preview effects in Chinese reading. Advances in Psychological Science, 19(12), 1721-1729. |
[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.] | |
[5] |
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 |
[6] | Cai, Q., & Byrsbert, M. (2010). Subtlex-ch: Chinese word and character frequencies based on film subtitles. Plos One, 5(6), Article e10729. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010729 |
[7] |
Engbert, R., Longtin, A., & Kliegl, R. (2002). A dynamical model of saccade generation in reading based on spatially distributed lexical processing. Vision Research, 42(5), 621-636.
pmid: 11853779 |
[8] |
Friederici, A. D., Gunter, T. C., Hahne, A., & Mauth, K. (2004). The relative timing of syntactic and semantic processes in sentence comprehension. Neuroreport, 15(1), 165-169.
pmid: 15106851 |
[9] |
Friederici, A. D., Pfeifer, E., & Hahne, A. (1993). Event- related brain potentials during natural speech processing: Effects of semantic, morphological and syntactic violations. Cognitive Brain Research, 1(3), 183-192.
pmid: 8257874 |
[10] | Gao, F., & Xu, S. H. (2000). N-V shift and pragmatic inference. Journal of Foreign Languages, (2), 7-14. |
[高芳, 徐盛桓. (2000). 名动转用与语用推理. 外国语, (2), 7-14.] | |
[11] |
Gunter, T. C., Friederici, A. D., & Hahne, A. (1999). Brain responses during sentence reading: Visual input affects central processes. Neuroreport, 10(15), 3175-3178.
pmid: 10574555 |
[12] |
Hu, C. P., Kong, X. Z., Wagenmakers, E. -J., Ly, A., & Peng, K. P. (2018) The Bayes factor and its implementation in JASP: A practical primer. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(6), 951-965.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.00951 URL |
[胡传鹏, 孔祥祯, Wagenmakers, E. -J., Ly, A., 彭凯平. (2018). 贝叶斯因子及其在JASP中的实现. 心理科学进展, 26(6), 951-965.] | |
[13] |
Kliegl, R., Nuthmann, A., & Engbert, R. (2006). Tracking the mind during reading: The influence of past, present, and future words on fixation durations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(1), 12-35.
doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.12 URL |
[14] | Li, W. L., & Zhang, H. C. (1993). The comparison of recognizing pictures, Chinese characters and English words. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 25(1), 24-30. |
[李文玲, 张厚粲. (1993). 图画与中、英文字词识别加工的比较. 心理学报, 25(1), 24-30.] | |
[15] | Liu, F., & Wei, Y. (2005). Diachronic study of English inflection from the perspective of cognitive grammar. Journal of China University of Mining & Technology (Social Sciences), 7(1), 112-118. |
[刘丰, 魏渊. (2005). 英语屈折历时变化的认知语言学阐释. 中国矿业大学学报(社会科学版), 7(1), 112-118.] | |
[16] | Liu, W. M., Inhoff, A. W., Ye, Y., & Wu, C. L. (2002). Use of parafoveally visible characters during the reading of Chinese sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 28(5), 1213-1227. |
[17] |
Nicenboim, B., & Vasishth, S., (2016). Statistical methods for linguistic research: Foundational ideas-part Ⅱ. Language and Linguistics Compass, 10(11), 591-613.
doi: 10.1111/lnc3.12207 URL |
[18] | Pollatsek, A., Juhasz, B. J., Reichle, E. D., Machacek, D., & Rayner, K. (2008). Immediate and delayed effects of word frequency and word length on eye movements in reading: A reversed delayed effect of word length. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance, 34(3), 726-750. |
[19] | R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R foundation for statistical computing. Retrieved from https://www.r-project.org/ |
[20] |
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 |
[21] |
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.
doi: 10.1080/17470210902816461 URL |
[22] |
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 |
[23] |
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 |
[24] |
Reichle, E. D., Warren, T., & Mcconnell, K. (2009). Using E-Z reader to model the effects of higher level language processing on eye movements during reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(1), 1-21.
doi: 10.3758/PBR.16.1.1 URL |
[25] |
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 |
[26] |
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 |
[27] |
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 |
[28] |
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 |
[29] |
Schotter, E. R., Leinenger, M., & von der Malsburg, T. (2018). When your mind skips what your eyes fixate: How forced fixations lead to comprehension illusions in reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(5), 1884-1890.
doi: 10.3758/s13423-017-1356-y URL |
[30] |
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), 309-333.
doi: 10.1080/13506285.2013.873508 URL |
[31] | Shen, J. X. (2009). My view of word classes in Chinese. Linguistic Sciences, 8(1), 1-22. |
[沈家煊. (2009). 我看汉语的词类. 语言科学, 8(1), 1-12.] | |
[32] | Snell, J., Meeter, M., & Grainger, J. (2017). Evidence for simultaneous syntactic processing of multiple words during reading. Plos One, 12(3), Article e0173720. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173720 |
[33] |
Snell, J., van Leipsig, S., Grainger, J., & Meeter, M. (2018). OB1-Reader: A model of word recognition and eye movements in text reading. Psychological Review, 125(6), 969-984.
doi: 10.1037/rev0000119 URL |
[34] | The contemporary Chinese dictionary (6th). (2012). Beijing: The Commercial Press. |
[现代汉语词典(第6版). (2012) 北京: 商务印书馆.] | |
[35] |
Vasilev, M. R., Yates, M., Prueitt, E., & Slattery, T. J. (2020). Parafoveal degradation during reading reduces preview costs only when it is not perceptually distinct. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74(2), 254-276.
doi: 10.1177/1747021820959661 URL |
[36] |
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 |
[37] | Veldre, A., Reichle, E. D., Wong, R., & Andrews, S. (2020). The effect of contextual plausibility on word skipping during reading. Cognition, 197, 104-184. |
[38] |
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 |
[39] |
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), 589-589.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2013.00589 URL |
[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), 589-589.] | |
[40] |
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 |
[41] |
Yang, J. M., Wang, S. P., Chen, H. C., & Rayner, K. (2009). The time course of semantic and syntactic processing in Chinese sentence comprehension: Evidence from eye movements. Memory & Cognition, 37(8), 1164-1176.
doi: 10.3758/MC.37.8.1164 URL |
[42] | Yang, Y, Wu, F. Y, Zhou, X. L. (2015). Semantic processing persists despite anomalous syntactic category: ERP evidence from Chinese passive sentences. Plos One, 10(6), Article e0131936. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131936 |
[43] |
Yu, J., & Zhang, Y. X. (2008). When Chinese semantics meets failed syntax. Neuroreport, 19(7), 745-749.
doi: 10.1097/WNR.0b013e3282fda21d URL |
[44] |
Zang, C. L., Du, H., Bai, X. J., Yan, G. L., & Liversedge, S. P. (2019). Word skipping in Chinese reading: The role of high-frequency preview and syntactic felicity. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 46(4), 603-620.
doi: 10.1037/xlm0000738 URL |
[45] |
Zang, C. L., Lu, Z. J., & Zhang, Z. C. (2019). The role of semantic and syntactic information in parafoveal processing during reading. Advances in Psychological Science, 27(1), 11-19.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.00011 URL |
[臧传丽, 鹿子佳, 张志超. (2019). 语义和句法信息在副中央凹加工中的作用. 心理科学进展, 27(1), 11-19.] | |
[46] |
Zang, C. L., Zhang, M. M., Bai, X. J., Yan, G. L., 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 |
[47] | Zhang, J. J., Peng, D. L., & Zhang, H. C. (1991). The recovery of meaning of Chinese characters in the classifying process (Ⅱ). Acta Psychologica Sinica, 23(2), 139-144. |
[张积家, 彭聃龄, 张厚粲. (1991). 分类过程中汉字的语义提取(Ⅱ). 心理学报, 23(2), 139-144.] | |
[48] | Zhang, M. M., Zang, C. L., & Bai, X. J. (2020). The spatial extent and depth of parafoveal pre-processing during Chinese reading. Advances in Psychological Science, 28(6), 871-882. |
[张慢慢, 臧传丽, 白学军. (2020). 中文阅读中副中央凹预加工的范围与程度. 心理科学进展, 28(6), 871-882.] | |
[49] | Zhang, J. J., Zhang, H. C., & Peng, D. L. (1990). The recovery of meaning of Chinese characters in the classifying process (Ⅰ). Acta Psychologica Sinica, 22(4), 397-405. |
[张积家, 张厚粲, 彭聃龄. (1990). 分类过程中汉字的语义提取(Ⅰ). 心理学报, 22(4), 397-405.] |
[1] | 曹海波, 兰泽波, 高峰, 于海涛, 李鹏, 王敬欣. 词素位置概率在中文阅读中的作用:词汇判断和眼动研究[J]. 心理学报, 2023, 55(2): 159-176. |
[2] | 张慢慢, 胡惠兰, 张志超, 李鑫, 汪强, 白学军, 臧传丽. 预测性对快速读者和慢速读者词汇加工的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2023, 55(1): 79-93. |
[3] | 刘志方, 仝文, 张智君, 赵亚军. 语境预测性对阅读中字词加工过程的影响:眼动证据[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(9): 1031-1047. |
[4] | 杨帆, 隋雪, 李雨桐. 中文阅读中长距离回视引导机制的眼动研究[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(8): 921-932. |
[5] | 张慢慢, 臧传丽, 徐宇峰, 白学军, 闫国利. 快速与慢速读者的中央凹加工对副中央凹预视的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(8): 933-945. |
[6] | 梁菲菲, 马杰, 李馨, 连坤予, 谭珂, 白学军. 发展性阅读障碍儿童阅读中的眼跳定位缺陷:基于新词学习的实验证据[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(7): 805-815. |
[7] | 白学军, 马杰, 李馨, 连坤予, 谭珂, 杨宇, 梁菲菲. 发展性阅读障碍儿童的新词习得及其改善[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(4): 471-483. |
[8] | 刘璐, 闫国利. 聋人阅读中的副中央凹视觉注意增强效应——来自消失文本的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(7): 715-726. |
[9] | 刘志方, 张智君, 潘运, 仝文, 苏衡. 中文阅读中预视阶段和注视阶段内词汇视觉编码 的过程特点:来自消失文本的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(7): 853-865. |
[10] | 高敏, 李琳, 向慧雯, 隋雪, Ralph Radach. 默读和出声阅读的副中央凹预视效应[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(11): 1357-1369. |
[11] | 刘志方;张智君;杨桂芳. 中文阅读中的字词激活模式:来自提示词边界延时效应的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(9): 1082-1092. |
[12] | 苏衡;刘志方;曹立人. 中文阅读预视加工中的词频和预测性效应及其对词切分的启示:基于眼动的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(6): 625-636. |
[13] | 王永胜;白学军;臧传丽;高晓雷;郭志英;闫国利. 副中央凹中字N+2的预视对汉语阅读眼跳目标选择影响的眼动研究[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(1): 1-11. |
[14] | 闫国利;刘妮娜;梁菲菲;刘志方;白学军. 中文读者词汇视觉信息获取速度的发展 ——来自消失文本的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(3): 300-318. |
[15] | 白学军;王永胜;郭志英;高晓雷;闫国利. 汉语阅读中词N+2的预视对高频词N+1 加工影响的眼动研究[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(2): 143-156. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||