Estimating the rate of failure to notice function word errors in natural reading
- PMID: 39349743
- DOI: 10.3758/s13423-024-02586-1
Estimating the rate of failure to notice function word errors in natural reading
Abstract
Skilled readers sometimes fail to notice seemingly obvious errors in text, such as the repetition or omission of a function word or the transposition of two words, suggesting that linguistic knowledge can override bottom-up input at either a perceptual or postperceptual level. The present study investigates the role of this top-down process of error correction in natural reading of extended texts. In previous research, critical sentences have been presented one at a time, and subjects were explicitly tasked with detecting errors. In the present study, each participant read a full newspaper article or pair of articles, with their comprehension tested by multiple choice questions. As a secondary task, participants were also instructed that they should make a mouse click on any errors in the text, without any instruction as to the frequency or nature of any such errors. Each article contained nine intentionally inserted errors involving function words: three repetitions, three omissions, and three transpositions. After removing subjects who did not click on the text at all (leaving n = 165), the median subject made seven clicks, but detected only one of the nine inserted errors. Neither error type nor article type (highly professional vs. amateur) clearly modulated the rate of error detection, though subjects clicked more often overall on the amateur articles. We conclude that previous research has dramatically underestimated the rate at which readers fail to notice these function word errors; in natural reading, they are noticed only rarely. No existing reading model can account for this phenomenon.
Keywords: Reading; Text comprehension; Word perception.
© 2024. The Psychonomic Society, Inc.
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations. Ethics approval: The methodology for this study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Massachusetts Amherst (Protocol #4840). Consent to participate: Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Consent for publication: No identifying information of individual participants is included in the article. Conflicts of interest: The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
References
-
- Brysbaert, M. (2019). How many words do we read per minute? A review and meta-analysis of reading rate. Journal of Memory and Language, 109, Article 104047.
-
- Bürkner, P. C. (2017). brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 80(1), 1–28. - DOI
-
- Christianson, K., Dempsey, J., Tsiola, A., & Goldshtein, M. (2022). What if they’re just not that into you (or your experiment)? On motivation and psycholinguistics. In K. D. Federmeier (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 76, pp. 51–88). Academic Press.
-
- Coley-Bishop, O. (2012). RIP freedom. Sayville Public Schools.
-
- Gibson, E., Bergen, L., & Piantadosi, S. T. (2013). Rational integration of noisy evidence and prior semantic expectations in sentence interpretation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(20), 8051–8056. - DOI
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials