Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Aug 1:83:118-139.
doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2015.04.005.

The effect of contextual constraint on parafoveal processing in reading

Affiliations

The effect of contextual constraint on parafoveal processing in reading

Elizabeth R Schotter et al. J Mem Lang. .

Abstract

Semantic preview benefit in reading is an elusive and controversial effect because empirical studies do not always (but sometimes) find evidence for it. Its presence seems to depend on (at least) the language being read, visual properties of the text (e.g., initial letter capitalization), the type of relationship between preview and target, and as shown here, semantic constraint generated by the prior sentence context. Schotter (2013) reported semantic preview benefit for synonyms, but not semantic associates when the preview/target was embedded in a neutral sentence context. In Experiment 1, we embedded those same previews/targets into constrained sentence contexts and in Experiment 2 we replicated the effects reported by Schotter (2013; in neutral sentence contexts) and Experiment 1 (in constrained contexts) in a within-subjects design. In both experiments, we found an early (i.e., first-pass) apparent preview benefit for semantically associated previews in constrained contexts that went away in late measures (e.g., total time). These data suggest that sentence constraint (at least as manipulated in the current study) does not operate by making a single word form expected, but rather generates expectations about what kinds of words are likely to appear. Furthermore, these data are compatible with the assumption of the E-Z Reader model that early oculomotor decisions reflect "hedged bets" that a word will be identifiable and, when wrong, lead the system to identify the wrong word, triggering regressions.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Hypothetical density distributions of words provided in the cloze task as a function of sentence constraint.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Means and standard errors for gaze duration (left panel) and total time (right panel) on the target across the four preview conditions in Experiment 1. Note that the scale of the y-axis is different for the two measures.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Reading time on the target word as a function of preview condition and sentence type, across 4 reading time measures (sfd = single fixation duration, gzd = gaze duration, gpt = go-past time, tvt = total time). Solid lines represent the neutral sentence condition and dashed lines represent the constrained sentence condition. Grey lines with open squares represent the data from Experiment 2 only, black lines with closed circles represent that data combined across three experiments (Schotter (2013) Experiment 2; current study: Experiments 1 & 2).

References

    1. Angele B, Laishley AE, Rayner K, Liversedge SP. The effect of high-and low-frequency previews and sentential fit on word skipping during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2014;40:1181–1203. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Angele B, Rayner K. Processing< em> the</em> in the parafovea: Are articles skipped automatically? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2013;39:649–662. - PubMed
    1. Baayen RH, Davidson DH, Bates DM. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language. 2008:390–412.
    1. Balota DA, Pollatsek A, Rayner K. The interaction of contextual constraints and parafoveal visual information in reading. Cognitive Psychology. 1985;17:364–390. - PubMed
    1. Barr DJ, Levy R, Scheepers C, Tily HJ. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language. 2013;68:255–278. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources