预测性对快速读者和慢速读者词汇加工的影响

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.00079

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

本研究借助眼动仪通过两个实验考察了熟练阅读中快速读者与慢速读者对语境预测性的利用是否有差异。实验1比较快速组与慢速组在中央凹加工高、低预测词的差异。实验2对比两组读者利用副中央凹预视(相同、相似假字、低预测词和不相似假字)加工高预测词的差异。实验1结果显示两组读者有相似的预测性效应：对高预测词的注视时间比低预测词更短。实验2结果显示两组读者的预视效应存在差异：慢速组在相同预视下对目标词的跳读率高于低预测预视, 而快速组在这两种预视下的跳读率差异不明显但高于慢速组; 慢速组在低预测和不相似预视下注视目标词的时间分别长于相同预视, 而快速组的这两种效应较小。结果表明, 两组读者利用预测性的差异表现在副中央凹加工阶段, 即慢速读者比快速读者利用相似预视激活预测性信息的效率更低, 且在低预测或无效预视下对词汇的识别和语义整合更困难, 这说明慢速读者在词汇加工中更依赖语境且对无关信息的抑制更弱。这些结果支持词汇质量假说。

关键词: 预测性, 中央凹加工, 副中央凹预视, 快速读者, 慢速读者, 中文阅读

Abstract:

According to the lexical quality hypothesis, high proficient (fast) readers have well-specified lexical representations which enable automatic word identification and less context decoding, while low proficient (slow) readers rely on context for word identification during reading due to their imprecise lexical quality. In contrast, the predictive coding framework assumes that high proficient readers rely more on their reading experience to predict the upcoming context compared to low proficient readers. However, it is still unclear how skilled readers with different levels of reading proficiency rely on context information (e.g., predictability) for word processing during Chinese reading. In two experiments, the present study aimed to investigate individual differences in the use of predictability for word identification by using the eye-tracking technique.

In Experiment 1, eye movements of fast and slow readers were recorded while they were reading sentences containing predictable or unpredictable target words, with the aim to investigate the differences in predictability effects between the two groups. Sixty pairs of predictable-unpredictable target words were selected, each of which was embedded into the same sentence frame. Fifteen fast and 15 slow readers, selected from a group of 66 participants based on their reading rates, participated in Experiment 1. In Experiment 2, parafoveal previews of the 60 predictable target words (identical word, visually similar pseudocharacter, unpredictable word or visually dissimilar pseudocharacter) were manipulated by using the boundary paradigm to explore how parafoveal preview influences processing of predictability information in the fast and slow readers. The eye movements of 20 fast and 20 slow readers, selected from a group of 80 participants on the basis of their reading rates, were recorded while they were reading sentences containing predictable target words with different previews in Experiment 2.

The results showed that fast readers fixated shorter and less on the target words and were more likely to skip the target words than slow readers. In Experiment 1, although reliable predictability effects with shorter fixations for predictable than unpredictable words were found, it did not interact with reading groups. However, results in Experiment 2 showed robust parafoveal preview effects on the target word which interacted with reading groups. In particular, the two groups had the same first-pass fixation times (i.e., FFD, SFD, GD) at the target words under the identical previews, while slow readers made longer fixations than fast readers at the targets with unpredictable previews or unrelated previews. In addition, fast readers skipped target words at a similar probability under both the identical preview and unpredictable preview conditions, while slow readers were less likely to skip target words with unpredictable previews than identical previews.

The current findings indicate that fast and slow readers rely on context to a similar degree during their foveal lexical processing whereas the two groups show different utilization of previews of the predictable word during their parafoveal processing. To be specific, compared to fast readers, slow readers are inefficient in activating the predictable word with a visually similar preview; moreover, slow readers are disturbed more by the unpredictable preview or the visually dissimilar preview for their lexical processing, which suggests that slow readers are less effective in suppressing unrelated or inappropriate information during reading. Such findings provide evidence for the lexical quality hypothesis and are in support of the linguistic-pro?ciency hypothesis related to individual differences in the E-Z reader model.

Key words: predictability, foveal processing, parafoveal preview, fast reader, slow reader, Chinese reading

中图分类号:

B842

张慢慢, 胡惠兰, 张志超, 李鑫, 汪强, 白学军, 臧传丽. (2023). 预测性对快速读者和慢速读者词汇加工的影响. 心理学报, 55(1), 79-93.

ZHANG Manman, HU Huilan, ZHANG Zhichao, LI Xin, WANG Qiang, BAI Xuejun, ZANG Chuanli. (2023). The effect of lexical predictability on word processing in fast and slow readers during Chinese reading. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(1), 79-93.

图/表 9

参考文献 47

[1]	Andrews S. (2015). Individual differences among skilled readers:The role of lexical quality. In A. Pollatsek, & R. Treiman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of reading (pp. 129-148). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.
[2]	Ashby J., Rayner K., & Clifton C. (2005). Eye movements of highly skilled and average readers: Differential effects of frequency and predictability. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (Section A), 58(6), 1065-1086.
[3]	Baayen R. H., Davidson D. J., & Bates D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390-412. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 URL
[4]	Bai X. J., Cao Y. X., Gu J. J., Guo Z. Y., & Yan G. L. (2011). Effects of Predictability and space on Chinese reading: An eye movement study. Journal of Psychological Science, 34(6), 1282-1288.
	[白学军, 曹玉肖, 顾俊娟, 郭志英, 闰国利. (2011). 可预测性和空格对中文阅读影响的眼动研究. 心理科学, 34 (6), 1282-1288.]
[5]	Balota D. A., Pollatsek A., & Rayner K. (1985). The interaction of contextual constraints and parafoveal visual information in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 17(3), 364-390. pmid: 4053565
[6]	Barr D. J., Levy R., Scheepers C., & Tily H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255-278. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 URL
[7]	Bates D., Mächler M., Bolker B., & Walker S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1-48.
[8]	Bélanger N. N., & Rayner K. (2013). Frequency and predictability effects in eye fixations for skilled and less- skilled deaf readers. Visual Cognition, 21(4), 477-497. doi: 10.1080/13506285.2013.804016 URL
[9]	Cai Q., & Brysbaert M. (2010). SUBTLEX-CH: Chinese word and character frequencies based on film subtitle. PloS ONE, 5, e10729.
[10]	Chang M., Zhang K., Hao L. S., Zhao S. N., McGowan V. A., Warrington K. L., … Gunn S. C. (2020). Word predictability depends on parafoveal preview validity in Chinese reading. Visual Cognition, 28(1), 33-40. doi: 10.1080/13506285.2020.1714825 URL
[11]	Clark A. (2018). A nice surprise? Predictive processing and the active pursuit of novelty. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 17(3), 521-534. doi: 10.1007/s11097-017-9525-z URL
[12]	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: Keith Rayner’s 40 year legacy. Journal of Memory and Language, 86, 1-19. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2015.07.004 URL
[13]	Drieghe D., Rayner K., & Pollatsek A. (2005). Eye movements and word skipping during reading revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(5), 954-969. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.31.5.954 URL
[14]	Engbert R., & Kliegl R. (2011). Parallel graded attention models of reading. In S. P. Liversedge, I. D. Gilchrist, & S. Everling (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of eye movements (pp.787-800). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.
[15]	Ferreira F., & Chantavarin S. (2018). Integration and prediction in language processing: A synthesis of old and new. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(6), 443-448. doi: 10.1177/0963721418794491 pmid: 31130781
[16]	Ferreira F., & Lowder M. W. (2016). Prediction, information structure, and good-enough language processing. In Psychology of learning and Motivation (Vol. 65, pp. 217-247). Academic Press.
[17]	Gernsbacher M. A. (1993). Less skilled readers have less efficient suppression mechanisms. Psychological Science, 4(5), 294-298. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00567.x pmid: 25309046
[18]	Hawelka S., Schuster S., Gagl B., & Hutzler F. (2015). On forward inferences of fast and slow readers: An eye movement study. Scientific Reports, 5, 8432. doi: 10.1038/srep08432 pmid: 25678030
[19]	Huang L. J. Q., & Li X. S. (2020). Early, but not overwhelming: The effect of prior context on segmenting overlapping ambiguous strings when reading Chinese. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(9) 1382-1395.
[20]	Johnson R. L., Oehrlein E. C., & Roche W. L. (2018). Predictability and parafoveal preview effects in the developing reader: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(7), 973-991. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000506 URL
[21]	Jordan T. R., Dixon J., McGowan V. A., Kurtev S., & Paterson K. B. (2016). Fast and slow readers and the effectiveness of the spatial frequency content of text: Evidence from reading times and eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(8), 1066-1071. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000234 URL
[22]	Li X. S., & Pollatsek A. (2020). An integrated model of word processing and eye-movement control during Chinese reading. Psychological Review, 127(6), 1139-1162. doi: 10.1037/rev0000248 URL
[23]	Liu N. N., Wang X., Liu Z. F., & Yan G. L. (2020). The effects of the word predictability on eye movements of skilled and less-skilled developing readers in Chinese sentences reading. Journal of Psychological Science, 43(6), 1369-1375.
	[刘妮娜, 王霞, 刘志方, 闫国利. (2020). 词汇预测性对中文高, 低阅读技能儿童眼动行为的影响. 心理科学, 43(6), 1369-1375.]
[24]	Liu N. N., Wang X., Liu Z. F., Wang Y. S., & Yan G. L. (2019). The effect of contextual predictability on parafoveal process for highly- and low-skilled developing readers during Chinese reading. Journal of Psychological Science, 42(4), 848-853.
	[刘妮娜, 王霞, 刘志方, 王永胜, 闫国利. (2019). 语境预测性对中文高低阅读技能儿童预视加工的影响. 心理科学, 42(4), 848-853.]
[25]	Morey R. D., Rouder J. N., Jamil T., Urbanek S., Forner K., & Ly A. (2018). BayesFactor: Computation of Bayes factors for common designs. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=BayesFactor
[26]	Perfetti C. A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 357-383. doi: 10.1080/10888430701530730 URL
[27]	R Development Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.Rproject.org/.
[28]	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
[29]	Rayner K., Pollatsek A., Ashby J., & Clifton Jr. C. (2012). Psychology of reading (2nd ed.) (pp.377-396). Psychology Press.
[30]	Rayner K., Schotter E. R., Masson M., Potter M. C., & Treiman R. (2016). So much to read, So little time: How do we read, and can speed reading help?. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 17(1), 4-34. doi: 10.1177/1529100615623267 pmid: 26769745
[31]	Rayner K., Slattery T. J., & Bélanger N. N. (2010). Eye movements, the perceptual span, and reading speed. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 17(6), 834-839. doi: 10.3758/PBR.17.6.834 pmid: 21169577
[32]	Reichle E. D. (2011). Serial-attention models of reading. In S. P. Liversedge, I. D. Gilchrist, & S. Everling (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of eye movements (pp. 767-786). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.
[33]	Reichle E.D., Liversedge S.P., Drieghe D., Blythe H.I., Joseph H., White S.J., & Rayner K. (2013). Using E-Z Reader to examine the concurrent development of eye- movement control and reading skill. Developmental Review, 33(2), 110-149. pmid: 24058229
[34]	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: 26257469
[35]	Slattery T. J., & Yates M. (2018). Word skipping: Effects of word length, predictability, spelling and reading skill. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(1), 250-259. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2017.1310264 URL
[36]	Staub A. (2015). The effect of lexical predictability on eye movements in reading: Critical review and theoretical interpretation. Language and Linguistics Compass, 9(8), 311-327. doi: 10.1111/lnc3.12151 URL
[37]	Staub A., & Goddard K. (2019). The role of preview validity in predictability and frequency effects on eye movements in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(1), 110-127. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000561 URL
[38]	Tiffin-Richards S. P., & Schroeder S. (2020). Context facilitation in text reading: A study of children’s eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46(9), 1701-1713. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000834 URL
[39]	Veldre A., & Andrews S. (2015). Parafoveal lexical activation depends on skilled reading proficiency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 41(2), 586-595. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000039 URL
[40]	Williams D. (2020). Predictive coding and thought. Synthese, 197(4), 1749-1775. doi: 10.1007/s11229-018-1768-x URL
[41]	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. 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), 589-605.]
[42]	Zhang M. M., Hu H. L., Bian H., Li F., Zhang Z. C., & Zang C. L. (2020). Word frequency effects in fast and slow readers during skilled Chinese reading. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 20(3), 304-310.
	[张慢慢, 胡惠兰, 边菡, 李芳, 张志超, 臧传丽. (2022). 中文阅读中快速读者与慢速读者的词频效应. 心理与行为研究, 20(3), 304-310.] doi: 10.12139/j.1672-0628.2022.03.003
[43]	Zhang M. M., Liversedge S. P., Bai X. J., Yan G. L., & Zang C. L. (2019). The influence of foveal lexical processing load on parafoveal preview and saccadic targeting during Chinese reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45(6), 812-825. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000644 URL
[44]	Zhang M. M., Zang C. L., Xu Y. F., Bai X. J., & Yan G. L. (2020). The influence of foveal processing load on parafoveal preview of fast and slow readers during Chinese reading. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52 (8), 933-945. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.00933 URL
	[张慢慢, 臧传丽, 徐宇峰, 白学军, 闫国利. (2020). 快速与慢速读者的中央凹加工对副中央凹预视的影响. 心理学报, 52(8), 933-945.]
[45]	Zhang M. M., Zhang Z. C., & Zang C. L. (2020). Is skipping based on full or partial processing of the parafoveal word in Chinese reading? Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 18(3), 311-317.
	[张慢慢, 张志超, 臧传丽. (2020). 跳读是基于副中央凹词的部分加工还是完全加工? 心理与行为研究, 18(3), 311-317.]
[46]	Zhao S. N., Li L., Chang M., Wang J. X., & Paterson K. B. (2021). A further look at ageing and word predictability effects in Chinese reading: Evidence from one-character words. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74(1), 68-76. doi: 10.1177/1747021820951131 URL
[47]	Zhao S. N., Li L., Chang M., Xu Q. Q., Zhang K., Wang J. X., & Paterson K. B. (2019). Older adults make greater use of word predictability in Chinese reading. Psychology and Aging, 34(6), 780-790. doi: 10.1037/pag0000382 pmid: 31380666

目标词	词频(次/百万)	首字字频(次/百万)	尾字字频(次/百万)	首字笔画数	尾字笔画数
高预测词	83.16 (164.44)	696.13 (972.09)	1027.81 (1882.19)	8 (3)	8 (3)
低预测词	51.56 (151.97)	677.13 (719.13)	789.92 (1624.03)	7 (3)	9 (3)

目标词	词频(次/百万)	首字字频(次/百万)	尾字字频(次/百万)	首字笔画数	尾字笔画数
高预测词	83.16 (164.44)	696.13 (972.09)	1027.81 (1882.19)	8 (3)	8 (3)
低预测词	51.56 (151.97)	677.13 (719.13)	789.92 (1624.03)	7 (3)	9 (3)

眼动指标	M (SD)		组别效应(慢速 vs. 快速)
眼动指标	快速组	慢速组	b	SE	t	p	95% CI
平均注视时间	212 (15) ms	251 (25) ms	0.17	0.03	5.45	< 0.001	[0.11, 0.22]
向前眼跳长度	3.3 (0.9) char.	2.4 (0.5) char.	?0.32	0.08	?3.80	< 0.001	[?0.48, ?0.15]
向前眼跳次数	5.6 (0.9)	9.9 (1.4)	0.56	0.06	9.17	< 0.001	[0.44, 0.68]
向后眼跳长度	5.8 (1.8) char.	4.9 (1.2) char.	?0.08	0.13	?0.63	0.532	[?0.34, 0.17]
向后眼跳次数	1.9 (0.4)	3.7 (1.1)	0.66	0.11	6.28	< 0.001	[0.46, 0.87]
总阅读时间	2415 (230) ms	4902 (629) ms	0.72	0.04	17.53	< 0.001	[0.64, 0.80]

眼动指标	M (SD)		组别效应(慢速 vs. 快速)
眼动指标	快速组	慢速组	b	SE	t	p	95% CI
平均注视时间	212 (15) ms	251 (25) ms	0.17	0.03	5.45	< 0.001	[0.11, 0.22]
向前眼跳长度	3.3 (0.9) char.	2.4 (0.5) char.	?0.32	0.08	?3.80	< 0.001	[?0.48, ?0.15]
向前眼跳次数	5.6 (0.9)	9.9 (1.4)	0.56	0.06	9.17	< 0.001	[0.44, 0.68]
向后眼跳长度	5.8 (1.8) char.	4.9 (1.2) char.	?0.08	0.13	?0.63	0.532	[?0.34, 0.17]
向后眼跳次数	1.9 (0.4)	3.7 (1.1)	0.66	0.11	6.28	< 0.001	[0.46, 0.87]
总阅读时间	2415 (230) ms	4902 (629) ms	0.72	0.04	17.53	< 0.001	[0.64, 0.80]

组别	预测性	SP	FFD (ms)	SFD (ms)	GD (ms)	RPD (ms)	TFD (ms)
快速	高预测	0.47 (0.12)	215 (20)	216 (21)	218 (22)	242 (50)	237 (35)
快速	低预测	0.45 (0.13)	225 (21)	225 (23)	232 (24)	263 (45)	269 (34)
慢速	高预测	0.25 (0.13)	244 (30)	240 (29)	267 (40)	341 (78)	329 (50)
慢速	低预测	0.23 (0.15)	259 (27)	259 (27)	291 (39)	337 (48)	362 (46)