Preview effects have been found in Chinese and alphabetic languages. However, previous studies showed that the preview effect in Chinese was greater and larger than alphabetic languages (Vasile & Angele, 2017). In Chinese, there is no word boundary information between words. A Chinese character can be formed by a word independently or combined with other Chinese characters into a word. While processing the current fixed character(s), Chinese readers may preview more character(s) to determine the position of word boundary in advance, thus increasing the preview effects (Yen et al., 2009). However, Sheridan et al. (2016) compared preview processing in a normal text condition contained spaces with an unsegmented text condition contained random numbers instead of spaces and larger preview effects were found for normal condition than unsegmented text condition. Present study further explored the influence of word demarcation information on preview processing. In the present study, we recorded readers’ eye movements to explore the influence of word demarcation information on preview processing for one-character words and two-character compound words. The one-character words were also the first character of two-character compound words. We adopted the boundary paradigm (Rayner, 1975) to manipulate the target words presented normally or replaced by a pseudocharacter for previews. Instead of word space, we adopted word highlighting to demarcate word boundary. As Cui et al. (2014) stated, inter-word spaces provide word boundary information while also reducing word boundary masking. Moreover, according to Bai et al. (2008), word spacing condition will increase the length of the sentence, which will affect the sensitivity of vision and then influence the fixation position and fixation duration. This research used the Eyelink 2000 eye tracker which has 1000Hz sampling rate. The experimental material was presented on a 19-inch flat screen display with a refresh rate of 150 Hz and a resolution of 1024 pixels×768 pixels. There were six practice sentences to help the participants familiarize with the experimental procedure. In addition, in the formal experiment, every three sentences were followed by reading questions to ensure that the participants could read the sentences carefully by asking the participants to judge "yes" or "no". Firstly, consistent with the findings of Bai et al. (2008), the results indicated that word highlighting could facilitate the processing of one-character words and two-character compound words, participant read word highlighting condition faster than normal condition. Secondly the results indicated that the preview effects of two-character compound words were greater than one-character words. Thirdly the results showed that word highlighting did not affect the preview effects for neither one-character words nor two-character compound words. These results are consistent with the model of word segmentation and word recognition (Li et al., 2009), which proposed that the character in the visual field be processed in parallel. When the target words are recognized, the word boundary information is also recognized; consequently, word highlighting did not affect the preview effects for neither one-character words nor two-character compound words. Totally, word boundary information is not the most fundamental reason for the preview processing differences between Chinese and alphabetic languages. We still need to further explore the reasons from more deeply cognitive processing to explain preview processing differences between Chinese and alphabetic languages in following studies.