回扫:多行文本阅读中必不可少的眼动&#x0002A;

高晓雷; 王丹慧; 李旭玲; 曾蔓; 高蕾

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20240309

PDF(330 KB)

心理科学 ›› 2024, Vol. 47 ›› Issue (3) : 581-589. DOI: 10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20240309

基础、实验与工效

回扫:多行文本阅读中必不可少的眼动^*

高晓雷, 王丹慧, 李旭玲, 曾蔓, 高蕾^*

作者信息 +

The Return Sweep: An Essential Eye Movement in Multi-Line Text Reading

Gao Xiaolei, Wang Danhui, Li Xuling, Zeng Man, Gao Lei

Author information +

文章历史 +

摘要

回扫是读者的注视点从文本上一行行末到下一行行首的眼动,在多行文本阅读中非常重要且必不可少。目前,回扫的相关研究较少,且主要集中于回扫起跳位置、回扫目标选择、回扫的精确性、与回扫相邻的注视四个方面。本文先简单介绍回扫研究中常用的眼动指标,再详细介绍回扫的四个方面的研究,最后提出未来的研究设想：关注其他文字与文字系统的回扫、考察二语阅读中的回扫、探究行末注视是否受行末注视词词汇特征的影响、探讨回扫过程中预视的缺失对词汇加工的影响以帮助我们理解边界范式中的“预视效益”,完善现有模型以适应回扫。

Abstract

In multi-line text reading, longer saccades are required to bring the reader’s fixation point from the end of the previous line to the beginning of the next line, which is called a return sweep. The return-sweep interval usually ranges from approximately 4~6 characters at the end of the previous line to approximately 5~8 characters at the beginning of the next line, with an end-to-end line distance of approximately 30~70 characters.
Return sweeps are essential for reading multi-line texts, which are common in natural reading. Research on return sweeps has mainly focused on the return-sweep launch site, target selection, accuracy, and the fixation adjacent to the return sweep. Studies have drawn five main conclusions: (1) Compared to those with high spelling and reading capacity, individuals with low spelling and reading capacity have a return-sweep launch site closer to the end of the line. (2) Readers can generally anticipate a return-sweep target based on the global typographic properties of the text, since selection of the return-sweep target is affected by the salience of the line-initial word, the return-sweep launch site, the font size, the line length, and individual differences among readers, as well as the combination of the length of the first word of the line and the return-sweep launch site, the combination of font size and the return-sweep launch site, and the combined influence of the font size, the line length, and the return-sweep launch site. (3) The accuracy of the return sweep is affected by the line length, the degree of deviation between the expected target and actual return-sweep landing position, the font size, the return-sweep launch site, salience of the line-initial word, and individual differences. (4) The fixations of the return sweep are divided into line-final and line-initial fixations, which are further divided into accurate line-initial and undersweep fixations. When durations between these three fixations are compared, the fixation duration for the line not adjacent to the return sweep is longer than for the line-final fixation and shorter than for the accurate line-initial fixation. Individual variations are also present in these durations. The duration of undersweep fixations is usually shorter than that for the line not adjacent to the return sweep. (5) During the undersweep fixation, a reader’s attention can temporarily focus on the fixation word instead of the first word of the line. Both adults and children can extract fixation words and information from the left side of the fixation words during the undersweep fixation duration to create a seamless transition in reading.
However, many aspects remain unclear. The influence of parafoveal information on word processing and saccadic target selection is not well understood across multi-line text and requires further study. For in-line saccades, a reader can obtain parafoveal prevision of the next word and select a saccadic target. However, during the return sweep, the longer interval and line distance places the first word of the next line beyond the parafoveal preview range, and the reader cannot preview the first word of the next line before the return sweep to select the saccadic target. Furthermore, the E-Z reader and SWIFT models are currently only used to explain single-line text reading. There is no model to explain the return sweep, which must be included for a reading model to simulate natural reading. Based on the above research, we propose that future research should aim to improve the existing reading model to accommodate the return sweep, examine the return sweep in other languages, compare the return sweep in first- and second-language reading, explore whether the line-final fixation durations are affected by the lexical properties of end-of-line fixation words, and investigate the influence of the lack of preview on lexical processing in the return-sweep process to understand the “preview benefit” in the boundary paradigm.

导出引用

高晓雷, 王丹慧, 李旭玲, 曾蔓, 高蕾. 回扫:多行文本阅读中必不可少的眼动^*[J]. 心理科学. 2024, 47(3): 581-589 https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20240309

Gao Xiaolei, Wang Danhui, Li Xuling, Zeng Man, Gao Lei. The Return Sweep: An Essential Eye Movement in Multi-Line Text Reading[J]. Journal of Psychological Science. 2024, 47(3): 581-589 https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20240309

参考文献

[1] 李兴珊, 刘萍萍, 马国杰. (2011). 中文阅读中词切分的认知机理述评. 心理科学进展, 19(4), 459-470.
[2] 李玉刚, 黄忍, 滑慧敏, 李兴珊. (2017). 阅读中的眼跳目标选择问题. 心理科学进展, 25(3), 404-412.
[3] 臧传丽, 孟红霞, 白学军, 闫国利. (2013). 阅读过程中的注视位置效应. 心理科学, 36(4), 770-775.
[4] 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.
[5] Abrams, S. G., & Zuber, B. L. (1972). Some temporal characteristics of information processing during reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 8(1), 40-51.
[6] Andriessen, J. J., & de Voogd, A. H. (1973). Analysis of eye movement patterns in silent reading. IPO Annual Progress Report, 8, 29-34.
[7] Becker, W. (1972). The control of eye movements in the saccadic system. Bibliotheca Ophthalmologica: Supplementa Ad Ophthalmologica, 82, 233-243.
[8] Becker, W. (1976). Do correction saccades depend exclusively on retinal feedback? A note on the possible role of non-retinal feedback. Vision Research, 16(4), 425-427.
[9] Becker, W., & Fuchs, A. F. (1969). Further properties of the human saccadic system: Eye movements and correction saccades with and without visual fixation points. Vision Research, 9(10), 1247-1258.
[10] Findlay, J. M. (1982). Global visual processing for saccadic eye movements. Vision Research, 22(8), 1033-1045.
[11] Genesee F., Geva E., Dressler C., & Kamil M. L. (2006). Synthesis: Cross-linguistic relationships. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language-minority children and youth (pp. 153-183). Erlbaum.
[12] Häikiö T., Bertram R., Hyönä J., & Niemi P. (2009). Development of the letter identity span in reading: Evidence from the eye movement moving window paradigm. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 102(2), 167-181.
[13] Hand C. J., Miellet S., O’Donnell P. J., & Sereno S. C. (2010). The frequency-predictability interaction in reading: It depends where you' re coming from. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(5), 1294-1313.
[14] Hand C. J., O’ Donnell P. J., & Sereno S. C. (2012). Word-initial letters influence fixation durations during fluent reading. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, Article 85.
[15] Hawley T. T., Stern J. A., & Chen S. C. (1974). Computer analysis of eye movements during reading. Literacy Research and Instruction, 13(4), 307-317.
[16] Henderson J. M., Luke S. G., Schmidt J., & Richards J. E. (2013). Co-registration of eye movements and event-related potentials in connected-text paragraph reading. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 7, Article 28.
[17] Henson, D. B. (1979). Investigation into corrective saccadic eye movements for refixation amplitudes of 10 degrees and below. Vision Research, 19(1), 57-61.
[18] Hofmeister J., Heller D., & Radach R. (1999). The return sweep in reading. In W. Becker, H. Deubel, & T. Mergner (Eds.), Current oculomotor research (pp. 349-357). Springer.
[19] Hutzler F., Fuchs I., Gagl B., Schuster S., Richlan F., Braun M., & Hawelka S. (2013). Parafoveal X-masks interfere with foveal word recognition: Evidence from fixation-related brain potentials. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 7, Article 33.
[20] Kliegl R., Hohenstein S., Yan M., & McDonald S. A. (2013). How preview space/time translates into preview cost/benefit for fixation durations during reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(3), 581-600.
[21] Kuperman V., Dambacher M., Nuthmann A., & Kliegl R. (2010). The effect of word position on eye-movements in sentence and paragraph reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(9), 1838-1857.
[22] McConkie G. W., Kerr P. W., Reddix M. D., & Zola D. (1988). Eye movement control during reading: I. The location of initial eye fixations on words. Vision Research, 28(10), 1107-1118.
[23] Miellet S., Sparrow L., & Sereno S. C. (2007). Word frequency and predictability effects in reading French: An evaluation of the E-Z Reader model. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14(4), 762-769.
[24] Mitchell D. C., Shen X., Green M. J., & Hodgson T. L. (2008). Accounting for regressive eye-movements in models of sentence processing: A reappraisal of the Selective Reanalysis hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(3), 266-293.
[25] Netchine S., Guihou M. C., Greenbaum C., & Englander G. (1983). Retour a la ligne, age des lecteurs et accessibilité au texte. Le Travail Humain, 46(1), 139-153.
[26] Parker, A. J. (2019). The return-sweep in reading (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). Bournemouth University.
[27] Parker A. J., Kirkby J. A., & Slattery T. J. (2017). Predictability effects during reading in the absence of parafoveal preview. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 29(8), 902-911.
[28] Parker A. J., Kirkby J. A., & Slattery T. J. (2020). Undersweep fixations during reading in adults and children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 192, 104788.
[29] Parker A. J., Nikolova M., Slattery T. J., Liversedge S. P., & Kirkby J. A. (2019). Binocular coordination and return-sweep saccades among skilled adult readers. Journal of Vision, 19(6), Article 10.
[30] Parker, A. J., & Slattery, T. J. (2019). Word frequency, predictability, and return-sweep saccades: Towards the modeling of eye movements during paragraph reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45(12), 1614-1633.
[31] Parker, A. J., & Slattery, T. J. (2021). Spelling ability influences early letter encoding during reading: Evidence from return-sweep eye movements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74(1), 135-149.
[32] Parker A. J., Slattery T. J., & Kirkby J. A. (2019). Return-sweep saccades during reading in adults and children. Vision Research, 155, 35-43.
[33] Posner, M. I., & Cohen, Y. (1984). Components of visual orienting. Attention and Performance, 32, 531-556.
[34] Prablanc, C., & Jeannerod, M. (1975). Corrective saccades: Dependence on retinal reafferent signals. Vision Research, 15(4), 465-469.
[35] Rayner, K. (1977). Visual attention in reading: Eye movements reflect cognitive processes. Memory and Cognition, 5(4), 443-448.
[36] Rayner, K. (1978). Eye movements in reading and information processing. Psychological Bulletin, 85(3), 618-660.
[37] Rayner, K. (1979). Eye guidance in reading: Fixation locations within words. Perception, 8(1), 21-30.
[38] Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372-422.
[39] Rayner K., Slattery T. J., Drieghe D., & Liversedge S. P. (2011). Eye movements and word skipping during reading: Effects of word length and predictability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(2), 514-528.
[40] Reichle E. D., Pollatsek A., & Rayner K. (2012). Using E-Z reader to simulate eye movements in nonreading tasks: A unified framework for understanding the eye-mind link. Psychological Review, 119(1), 155-185.
[41] Schad, D. J., & Engbert, R. (2012). The zoom lens of attention: Simulating shuffled versus normal text reading using the swift model. Visual Cognition, 20(4-5), 391-421.
[42] Slattery, T. J., & Parker, A. J. (2019). Return sweeps in reading: Processing implications of undersweep-fixations. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 26(6), 1948-1957.
[43] Slattery, T. J., & Vasilev, M. R. (2019). An eye-movement exploration into return-sweep targeting during reading. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 81(5), 1197-1203.
[44] 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.
[45] Stern, J. A. (1981). Eye movements, reading and cognition. In J. W. Senders, D. F. Fisher & R. A. Monty (Eds.), Eye movements and higher psychological functions (pp. 145-155). Erlbaum.
[46] Tian J., Ying H. S., & Zee D. S. (2013). Revisiting corrective saccades: Role of visual eedback. Vision Research, 89, 54-64.
[47] Tinker M. A.(1963). Legibility of print. Iowa State University Press..
[48] Trauzettel-Klosinski S., Koitzsch A. M., Dürrwächter U., Sokolov A. N., Reinhard J., & Klosinski G. (2010). Eye movements in German-speaking children with and without dyslexia when reading aloud. Acta Ophthalmologica, 88(6), 681-691.
[49] Vasilev M. R., Adedeji V. I., Laursen C., Budka M., & Slattery T. J. (2021). Do readers use character information when programming return-sweep saccades? Vision Research, 183, 30-40.
[50] 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 and Review, 24(3), 666-689.
[51] Vasilev M. R., Slattery T. J., Kirkby J. A., & Angele B. (2018). What are the costs of degraded parafoveal previews during silent reading? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(3), 371-386.
[52] Vasilev M. R., Yates M., Prueitt E., & Slattery T. J. (2021). Parafoveal degradation during reading reduces preview costs only when it is not perceptually distinct. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74(2), 254-276.
[53] 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.
[54] Veldre A., Drieghe D., & Andrews S. (2017). Spelling ability selectively predicts the magnitude of disruption in unspaced text reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(9), 1612-1628.
[55] Whitford, V., & Titone, D. (2012). Second-language experience modulates first- and second-language word frequency effects: Evidence from eye movement measures of natural paragraph reading. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 19(1), 73-80.
[56] Whitford, V., & Titone, D. (2014). The effects of reading comprehension and launch site on frequency-predictability interactions during paragraph reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(6), 1151-1165.
[57] Yan, M., & Kliegl, R. (2016). CarPrice versus CarpRice: Word boundary ambiguity influences saccade target selection during the reading of Chinese sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(11), 1832-1838.