The Predominant Role of Preview Plausibility on Semantic Preview Benefit of Two-Character Words in Chinese Reading: An Eye Movement Study

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2023.01.003

Abstract

Abstract:

Semantic preview benefit (SPB) is of great significance in revealing whether readers can extract high-level information from the parafovea during reading. The underlying mechanism of SPB in reading research is still controversial. This study aimed to investigate the effects of preview plausibility and semantic relatedness between the preview and target words on the SPB of Chinese two-character words. We observed a significant main effect of the preview plausibility. The fixation durations of the target word were significantly shorter in the plausible preview condition than in the implausible preview condition. The main effect of semantic relatedness was not significant, and there was no interaction effect between the two variables. These findings support the contextual fit account and further demonstrate the predominant role of preview plausibility on SPB in Chinese reading.

Key words: semantic preview benefit, plausibility, Chinese reading, eye movement

摘要：

语义预视效益(SPB)对于揭示阅读中读者能否从副中央凹提取高水平信息具有重要意义。关于SPB的产生机制仍然存在争议。本研究通过同时操控预视词的合理性和语义相关性考察了二者对汉语阅读中双字词SPB的影响。结果发现，合理性主效应显著，合理预视下目标词的注视时间显著短于不合理预视；语义相关性主效应不显著，未发现二者的交互作用。研究结果支持了语境匹配假说，进一步说明了汉语阅读中预视词的合理性对SPB的优势作用。

关键词: 语义预视效益, 合理性, 汉语阅读, 眼动

CLC Number:

B842

Lijuan ZHANG, Fengjun ZHANG, Sainan ZHAO, Jingxin WANG. The Predominant Role of Preview Plausibility on Semantic Preview Benefit of Two-Character Words in Chinese Reading: An Eye Movement Study[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2023, 21(1): 12-19.

张俐娟, 张凤筠, 赵赛男, 王敬欣. 合理性对汉语阅读中双字词语义预视效益的优势作用：眼动研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2023, 21(1): 12-19.

Figures/Tables 5

References

	崔磊, 关宜韫, 张颖靓, 闫国利单字词和复合词预视加工的差异性研究: 词边界信息无影响. 心理科学, 2019, 42 (6): 1298- 1304.
	王永胜, 何立媛. (2022). 双字词词频与尾字字频在老年读者眼跳目标选择中的作用. 天津师范大学学报(社会科学版), (3), 114–120.
	闫国利, 巫金根, 胡晏雯, 白学军当前阅读的眼动研究范式述评. 心理科学进展, 2010, 18 (12): 1966- 1976.
	Altarriba, J., Kambe, G., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. Semantic codes are not used in integrating information across eye fixations in reading: Evidence from fluent Spanish-English bilinguals. Perception & Psychophysics, 2001, 63 (5): 875- 890.
	Antúnez, M., Milligan, S., Hernández-Cabrera, J. A., Barber, H. A., & Schotter, E. R. Semantic parafoveal processing in natural reading: Insight from fixation-related potentials & eye movements. Psychophysiology, 2022, 59 (4): e13986.
	Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 2015, 67 (1): 1- 48.
	Cai, Q., & Brysbaert, M. SUBTLEX-CH: Chinese word and character frequencies based on film subtitles. PLoS ONE, 2010, 5 (6): e10729. DOI
	Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 1975, 82 (6): 407- 428. DOI
	Hohenstein, S., & Kliegl, R. (2014). Semantic preview benefit during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(1), 166–190.
	Hohenstein, S., Laubrock, J., & Kliegl, R. (2010). Semantic preview benefit in eye movements during reading: A parafoveal fast-priming study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(5), 1150–1170.
	Huang, L. J. Q., Staub, A., & Li, X. S. Prior context influences lexical competition when segmenting Chinese overlapping ambiguous strings. Journal of Memory and Language, 2021, 118, 104218. DOI
	Hutchison, K. A. (2003). Is semantic priming due to association strength or feature overlap? A microanalytic review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(4), 785–813.
	Lawless, J. F. (2011). Statistical models and methods for lifetime data (Vol. 362). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
	Li, N., Sun, D. X., & Wang, S. P. (2022). Semantic preview effect of relatedness and plausibility in reading Chinese: Evidence from high constraint sentences. Reading and Writing. Advance online publication. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11145-022-10350-x
	Liversedge, S. P., Zang, C. L., Zhang, M. M., Bai, X. J., Yan, G. L., & Drieghe, D. (2014). The effect of visual complexity and word frequency on eye movements during Chinese reading. Visual Cognition, 22(3–4), 441–457.
	Ma, G. J., & Li, X. S. How character complexity modulates eye movement control in Chinese reading. Reading and Writing, 2015, 28 (6): 747- 761. DOI
	Neely, J. H. (1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. In D. Besner & G. W. Humphreys (Eds.), Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition (pp. 264–336). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
	Rayner, K. The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 1975, 7 (1): 65- 81. DOI
	Rayner, K. The 35th Sir Frederick Bartlett Lecture: Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2009, 62 (8): 1457- 1506. DOI
	Rayner, K., Balota, D. A., & Pollatsek, A. Against parafoveal semantic preprocessing during eye fixations in reading. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie, 1986, 40 (4): 473- 483. DOI
	Rayner, K., Schotter, E. R., & Drieghe, D. Lack of semantic parafoveal preview benefit in reading revisited. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2014, 21 (4): 1067- 1072.
	Reichle, E. D., Pollatsek, A., Fisher, D. L., & Rayner, K. Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. Psychological Review, 1998, 105 (1): 125- 157. DOI
	Reingold, E. M., Reichle, E. D., Glaholt, M. G., & Sheridan, H. Direct lexical control of eye movements in reading: Evidence from a survival analysis of fixation durations. Cognitive Psychology, 2012, 65 (2): 177- 206. DOI
	Reingold, E. M., & Sheridan, H. Estimating the divergence point: A novel distributional analysis procedure for determining the onset of the influence of experimental variables. Frontiers in Psychology, 2014, 5, 1432.
	Schotter, E. R. Synonyms provide semantic preview benefit in English. Journal of Memory and Language, 2013, 69 (4): 619- 633. DOI
	Schotter, E. R., Angele, B., & Rayner, K. (2012). Parafoveal processing in reading. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74(1), 5–35.
	Schotter, E. R., & Jia, A. N. (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.
	Schotter, E. R., & Leinenger, M. Reversed preview benefit effects: Forced fixations emphasize the importance of parafoveal vision for efficient reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2016, 42 (12): 2039- 2067. DOI
	Schotter, E. R., Reichle, E. D., & Rayner, K. (2014). Rethinking parafoveal processing in reading: Serial-attention models can explain semantic preview benefit and N+2 preview effects. Visual Cognition, 22(3–4), 309–333.
	Veldre, A., & Andrews, S. Is semantic preview benefit due to relatedness or plausibility?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2016, 42 (7): 939- 952. DOI
	Veldre, A., & Andrews, S. Beyond cloze probability: Parafoveal processing of semantic and syntactic information during reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 2018, 100, 1- 17. DOI
	Veldre, A., Reichle, E. D., Wong, R., & Andrews, S. The effect of contextual plausibility on word skipping during reading. Cognition, 2020, 197, 104184. DOI
	Wei, W., Li, X. S., & Pollatsek, A. Word properties of a fixated region affect outgoing saccade length in Chinese reading. Vision Research, 2013, 80, 1- 6. DOI
	White, S. J., Bertram, R., & Hyönä, J. (2008). Semantic processing of previews within compound words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(4), 988–993.
	Yan, M. Visually complex foveal words increase the amount of parafoveal information acquired. Vision Research, 2015, 111, 91- 96. DOI
	Yan, M., Richter, E. M., Shu, H., & Kliegl, R. Readers of Chinese extract semantic information from parafoveal words. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2009, 16 (3): 561- 566.
	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.
	Yang, J. M., Li, N., Wang, S. P., Slattery, T. J., & Rayner, K. Encoding the target or the plausible preview word? The nature of the plausibility preview benefit in reading Chinese. Visual Cognition, 2014, 22 (2): 193- 213. DOI
	Yang, J. M., Wang, S. P., Tong, X. H., & Rayner, K. Semantic and plausibility effects on preview benefit during eye fixations in Chinese reading. Reading and Writing, 2012, 25 (5): 1031- 1052. DOI
	Zhu, M. Y., Zhuang, X. L., & Ma, G. J. Readers extract semantic information from parafoveal two-character synonyms in Chinese reading. Reading and Writing, 2021, 34 (3): 773- 790. DOI

预视条件	例句
相同	粗心的佩蒂在修剪\|玫瑰时不小心划破了手指。
合理相关	粗心的佩蒂在修剪\|鲜花时不小心划破了手指。
合理不相关	粗心的佩蒂在修剪\|刘海时不小心划破了手指。
不合理相关	粗心的佩蒂在修剪\|爱情时不小心划破了手指。
不合理不相关	粗心的佩蒂在修剪\|判断时不小心划破了手指。

预视条件	例句
相同	粗心的佩蒂在修剪\|玫瑰时不小心划破了手指。
合理相关	粗心的佩蒂在修剪\|鲜花时不小心划破了手指。
合理不相关	粗心的佩蒂在修剪\|刘海时不小心划破了手指。
不合理相关	粗心的佩蒂在修剪\|爱情时不小心划破了手指。
不合理不相关	粗心的佩蒂在修剪\|判断时不小心划破了手指。

预视条件	首字笔画	尾字笔画	首字字频	尾字字频	词频	预测性	语义相关性	句子合理性
相同	9.09(2.81)	8.98(3.32)	947.33(4217.20)	624.69(1078.14)	34.08(97.43)	0.02(0.04)		6.29(0.36)
合理相关	9.03(3.01)	8.83(2.91)	412.81(825.08)	460.05(801.84)	28.33(84.75)	0.01(0.02)	5.84(0.42)	6.24(0.39)
合理不相关	8.80(2.48)	8.56(3.03)	382.42(508.99)	890.13(1454.61)	28.34(54.96)	0.01(0.02)	1.79(0.49)	6.21(0.61)
不合理相关	8.65(2.42)	8.53(2.73)	563.10(970.86)	730.52(1207.48)	42.59(78.64)	0.00(0.00)	5.81(0.49)	1.95(0.41)
不合理不相关	8.69(2.37)	8.73(2.60)	861.89(1929.77)	782.04(1389.43)	37.41(57.46)	0.00(0.00)	1.74(0.44)	1.92(0.35)

预视条件	首字笔画	尾字笔画	首字字频	尾字字频	词频	预测性	语义相关性	句子合理性
相同	9.09(2.81)	8.98(3.32)	947.33(4217.20)	624.69(1078.14)	34.08(97.43)	0.02(0.04)		6.29(0.36)
合理相关	9.03(3.01)	8.83(2.91)	412.81(825.08)	460.05(801.84)	28.33(84.75)	0.01(0.02)	5.84(0.42)	6.24(0.39)
合理不相关	8.80(2.48)	8.56(3.03)	382.42(508.99)	890.13(1454.61)	28.34(54.96)	0.01(0.02)	1.79(0.49)	6.21(0.61)
不合理相关	8.65(2.42)	8.53(2.73)	563.10(970.86)	730.52(1207.48)	42.59(78.64)	0.00(0.00)	5.81(0.49)	1.95(0.41)
不合理不相关	8.69(2.37)	8.73(2.60)	861.89(1929.77)	782.04(1389.43)	37.41(57.46)	0.00(0.00)	1.74(0.44)	1.92(0.35)

眼动指标	相同	合理相关	合理不相关	不合理相关	不合理不相关
单次注视时间	245(3)	263(4)	261(5)	288(5)	292(5)
首次注视时间	245(3)	271(4)	268(4)	287(5)	294(4)
凝视时间	276(5)	346(8)	332(7)	372(8)	375(7)
跳读率	0.20(0.01)	0.20(0.01)	0.19(0.01)	0.18(0.01)	0.17(0.01)