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
. 2020 Oct-Dec;55(4):679-697.
doi: 10.1002/rrq.295. Epub 2020 Feb 11.

Impact of Informative Context's Meaning Consistency During Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition

Affiliations

Impact of Informative Context's Meaning Consistency During Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition

Randy Lowell et al. Read Res Q. 2020 Oct-Dec.

Abstract

The authors examined the influence of context meaning consistency on incidental vocabulary acquisition during reading. Context meaning consistency refers to informational context that reflected the same meaning (i.e., consistent) or different meanings (i.e., inconsistent) across two self-paced reading sessions for a given item (both sessions on the same day). The first sentence of each sentence-pair item contained informational context, and the second sentence contained a target word (novel target or known control). Acquisition was assessed via surprise memory tests given right after the reading sessions (immediate) and again approximately a week later (delayed). Inconsistent context was generally associated with inflated reading times and less recall than consistent context, and retention was particularly low when the first encounter with the novel target was during the second reading session. Self-paced reading times were also particularly inflated in the second reading session for items in which readers encountered the novel word version of the target for the first time (i.e., known control encountered during the first reading session instead). Acquisition was facilitated most for novel targets that were presented during both reading sessions in consistent meaning context, but suffered the most in the case of consistent context and the novel target initially encountered in the second session. When presented with different meanings for the same novel target across self-paced reading sessions (inconsistent context condition), the intended meaning for the initial presentation was more likely to remain in memory.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Self-Paced Reading Procedure Note. Flow chart depicting Self-Paced Reading Procedure, based on the sequence of information readers were presented with on the screen after each press of the SPACE bar.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Design of the Self-Paced Reading Stimuli Conditions across Reading Sessions Note. Diagram of the Self-Paced Reading stimuli conditions across the two reading sessions.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Sample Item Versions Across Self-Paced Reading Conditions/Sessions Note. Diagram of the Self-Paced Reading sample item across conditions and sessions.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Session 1 Self-Paced Reading Times (msec) by Epoch Note. Self-paced reading time means from reading session 1, in milliseconds, for items with novel target words versus items with known controls, by reading epoch. Standard error bars included.
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5
Session 2 Self-Paced Reading Times (msec) by Epoch Note. Self-paced reading time means from reading session 2, in milliseconds, for consistent and inconsistent context items with novel target words or known controls in neither, one, or both reading sessions; by reading epoch. Standard error bars included.
FIGURE 6
FIGURE 6
Novel Word Recognition on Immediate Test Note. Recognition performance (i.e., remembering the novel target from the self-paced reading session) on the Immediate Test (Day 1) as a function of scores on the Author Recognition Test (ART).

References

    1. Acheson DJ, Wells JB, & MacDonald MC (2008). New and updated tests of print exposure and reading abilities in college students. Behavior Research Methods, 40(1), 278–289. 10.3758/BRM.40.1.278 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Adlof S, Frishkoff G, Dandy J, & Perfetti C (2016). Effects of induced orthographic and semantic knowledge on subsequent learning: A test of the partial knowledge hypothesis. Reading and Writing, 29(3), 475–500. 10.1007/s11145-015-9612-x - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Baayen R (2007). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    1. Bolger D, Balass M, Landen E, & Perfetti C (2008). Context variation and definitions in learning the meanings of words: An instance-based learning approach. Discourse Processes, 45(2), 122–159. 10.1080/01638530701792826 - DOI
    1. Borovsky A, Kutas M, & Elman J (2010). Learning to use words: Event-related potentials index single-shot contextual word learning. Cognition, 116(2), 289–296. 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.05.004 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources