The Influence of Preview on Contextual Predictability Effects during Reading

Zhao Sainan; Li Lin; Zhang Lijuan; Wang Jingxin

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20230401

PDF(1514 KB)

Journal of Psychological Science ›› 2023, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (4) : 770-778. DOI: 10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20230401

General Psychology, Experimental Psychology & Ergonomics

The Influence of Preview on Contextual Predictability Effects during Reading

Zhao Sainan^1,2, Li Lin¹, Zhang Lijuan¹, Wang Jingxin¹

Author information +

History +

Abstract

Most previous research have found contextual predictability effects eliminated in invalid preview which indicates contextual predictability effects depend on valid preview (like normal reading). The researchers manipulated invalid preview conditions by presenting various kinds of words or nonwords that were different from target words in parafoveal vision. It has been well established that invalid preview can cause various costs that may overwrite the contextual predictability effects. However, it is still hard to tell which is the cause of the elimination of contextual predictability effects in invalid preview conditions: the cost caused by invalid preview, or the absence of valid preview. Solving this problem is crucial to understand how the top-bottom predictability is influenced by bottom-top preview information. The present research investigated this effect with incremental paradigm by manipulating parafovea without preview information.
EyeLink 1000 Plus eye-tracker recorded participants' (40 participants in experiment 1 and 44 participants in experiment 2) right-eye gaze when they read the sentences that contained target words. Sentences were displayed in Song font in black-on-gray text on a 24-inch ASUS LCD monitor (1920×1080 pixels) with each character subtended approximately 0.9 degrees of visual angle. Experiment 1 was a 2(contextual predictability: high, low)×2(preview type: normal, none)within subjects design. Stimuli were 164 sets of Chinese sentences containing two interchangeable target words that were of either high or low contextual predictability. There was no preview information before directly fixed word in none preview condition, which was different from normal reading pattern and may influence the results. The aim of experiment 2 was to further verify and extend the findings from experiment 1 in a more normal reading form. In order to create a normal reading pattern with minimal interference for vocabulary processing, experiment 2 used meaningless and simple ※ as invalid preview. It was a 2 (contextual predictability: high, low) × 2(preview type: normal, ※) within subjects design.
The results showed clear effects of preview type in both experiments with shorter reading times and word skipping rate for normal preview condition, in line with findings from previous studies. It also replicated robust and reliable contextual predictability effects on eye movement time measures (first fixation duration, gaze duration, total reading time) in both experiment 1 and experiment 2, which were contributed to longer fixation durations for high predictability words than low predictability words. More importantly, the current results showed no interaction between contextual predictability and preview types on any measures in both experiment 1 and experiment 2. It suggested that the contextual predictability effects with none preview and ※ preview were similar to normal preview. The results of Bayes analyses also provided strong evidence for the additive models.
The key point of present study is the interaction between contextual predictability and preview type. The robust addictive effects suggest the elimination of contextual predictability effects in invalid previews is not due to the lack of valid preview but the overwrite of the invalid preview costs. Therefore, this research indicates contextual predictability influences word processing independently rather than depending on the valid preview information.

Key words

contextual predictability / preview / incremental revealing text paradigm / eye movement

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

Zhao Sainan, Li Lin, Zhang Lijuan, Wang Jingxin. The Influence of Preview on Contextual Predictability Effects during Reading[J]. Journal of Psychological Science. 2023, 46(4): 770-778 https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20230401

References

[1] 刘志方, 仝文, 张智君, 赵亚军. (2020). 语境预测性对阅读中字词加工过程的影响: 眼动证据. 心理学报, 52(9), 1031-1047.
[2] 王丽红, 闫国利. (2020). 阅读知觉广度研究中掩蔽刺激干扰效应的眼动研究. 心理学探新, 40(4), 318-324.
[3] 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.
[4] 闫国利, 张巧明, 张兰兰, 白学军. (2013). 不同掩蔽材料对阅读知觉广度的影响. 心理科学, 36(6), 1317-1322.
[5] 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.
[6] 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.
[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] 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.
[9] DeLong K. A., Urbach T. P., & Kutas M. (2005). Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience, 8(8), 1117-1121.
[10] Diaz, M. T., & Swaab, T. Y. (2007). Electrophysiological differentiation of phonological and semantic integration in word and sentence contexts. Brain Research, 1146, 85-100.
[11] Findlay, J. M., & Walker, R. (1999). A model of saccade generation based on parallel processing and competitive inhibition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 661-674.
[12] Morey, R. D., & Rouder, J. N. (2021). BayesFactor: Computation of bayes factors for common designs. R package version 0.9.12-4.3. https://rdrr.io/cran/BayesFactor/.
[13] Norris, D. (2006). The Bayesian reader: Explaining word recognition as an optimal Bayesian decision process. Psychological Review, 113(2), 327-357.
[14] 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.
[15] 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.
[16] Rayner, K. (1975). Parafoveal identification during a fixation in reading. Acta Psychologica, 39(4), 271-281.
[17] Rayner, K. (1978). Eye movements in reading and information processing. Psychological Bulletin, 85(3), 618-660.
[18] Rayner, K. & Well, A. D. (1996). Effects of contextual constraint on eye movements in reading: A further examination. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 3(4), 504-509.
[19] Schotter E. R., Angele B., & Rayner K. (2012). Parafoveal processing in reading. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 74, 5-35.
[20] 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.
[21] 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.
[22] 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.
[23] Vandekerckhove J., Matzke D., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2015). Model comparison and the principle of parsimony. In J. R. Busemeyer, Z. Wang, J. T. Townsend, & A. Eidels (Eds.), The oxford handbook of computational and mathematical psychology (pp. 125-144). Oxford University Press.
[24] Veldre, A., & Andrews, S. (2018). Parafoveal preview effects depend on both preview plausibility and target predictability. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(1), 64-74.
[25] Warrington K. L., McGowan V. A., Paterson K. B., & White S. J. (2018). Effects of aging, word frequency, and text stimulus quality on reading across the adult lifespan: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(11), 1714-1729.
[26] 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.
[27] 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.