Literature DB >> 24434024

Task effects reveal cognitive flexibility responding to frequency and predictability: evidence from eye movements in reading and proofreading.

Elizabeth R Schotter1, Klinton Bicknell2, Ian Howard2, Roger Levy3, Keith Rayner2.   

Abstract

It is well-known that word frequency and predictability affect processing time. These effects change magnitude across tasks, but studies testing this use tasks with different response types (e.g., lexical decision, naming, and fixation time during reading; Schilling, Rayner, & Chumbley, 1998), preventing direct comparison. Recently, Kaakinen and Hyönä (2010) overcame this problem, comparing fixation times in reading for comprehension and proofreading, showing that the frequency effect was larger in proofreading than in reading. This result could be explained by readers exhibiting substantial cognitive flexibility, and qualitatively changing how they process words in the proofreading task in a way that magnifies effects of word frequency. Alternatively, readers may not change word processing so dramatically, and instead may perform more careful identification generally, increasing the magnitude of many word processing effects (e.g., both frequency and predictability). We tested these possibilities with two experiments: subjects read for comprehension and then proofread for spelling errors (letter transpositions) that produce nonwords (e.g., trcak for track as in Kaakinen & Hyönä) or that produce real but unintended words (e.g., trial for trail) to compare how the task changes these effects. Replicating Kaakinen and Hyönä, frequency effects increased during proofreading. However, predictability effects only increased when integration with the sentence context was necessary to detect errors (i.e., when spelling errors produced words that were inappropriate in the sentence; trial for trail). The results suggest that readers adopt sophisticated word processing strategies to accommodate task demands.
Copyright © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Eye movements; Frequency; Predictability; Reading; Task effects

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24434024      PMCID: PMC3943895          DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cognition        ISSN: 0010-0277


  39 in total

1.  The role of phonology in the activation of word meanings during reading: evidence from proofreading and eye movements.

Authors:  D Jared; B A Levy; K Rayner
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  1999-09

2.  Reading strategy modulates parafoveal-on-foveal effects in sentence reading.

Authors:  Christiane Wotschack; Reinhold Kliegl
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2011-10-25       Impact factor: 2.143

3.  Eye movements during mindless reading.

Authors:  Erik D Reichle; Andrew E Reineberg; Jonathan W Schooler
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2010-08-02

4.  SWIFT: a dynamical model of saccade generation during reading.

Authors:  Ralf Engbert; Antje Nuthmann; Eike M Richter; Reinhold Kliegl
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 8.934

5.  Eye movements of highly skilled and average readers: differential effects of frequency and predictability.

Authors:  Jane Ashby; Keith Rayner; Charles Clifton
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol A       Date:  2005-08

6.  Effects of contextual constraint on eye movements in reading: A further examination.

Authors:  K Rayner; A D Well
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  1996-12

7.  P300 and the word frequency effect.

Authors:  J Polich; E Donchin
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1988-07

8.  Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity.

Authors:  K Rayner; S A Duffy
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1986-05

9.  Mislocated fixations can account for parafoveal-on-foveal effects in eye movements during reading.

Authors:  Denis Drieghe; Keith Rayner; Alexander Pollatsek
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 2.143

10.  The zoom lens of attention: Simulating shuffled versus normal text reading using the SWIFT model.

Authors:  Daniel J Schad; Ralf Engbert
Journal:  Vis cogn       Date:  2012-05-23
View more
  10 in total

Review 1.  Phonological coding during reading.

Authors:  Mallorie Leinenger
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2014-08-25       Impact factor: 17.737

2.  Readers can identify the meanings of words without looking at them: Evidence from regressive eye movements.

Authors:  Elizabeth R Schotter; Anna Marie Fennell
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2019-10

3.  Revisiting the self-generation effect in proofreading.

Authors:  Alexander P Burgoyne; Sari Saba-Sadiya; Lauren Julius Harris; Mark W Becker; Jan W Brascamp; David Z Hambrick
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2022-07-06

4.  Examining the relationship between comprehension and production processes in code-switched language.

Authors:  Rosa E Guzzardo Tamargo; Jorge R Valdés Kroff; Paola E Dussias
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2016-01-05       Impact factor: 3.059

5.  What reading aloud reveals about speaking: Regressive saccades implicate a failure to monitor, not inattention, in the prevalence of intrusion errors on function words.

Authors:  Elizabeth R Schotter; Chuchu Li; Tamar H Gollan
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2019-01-29       Impact factor: 2.138

6.  Lexical Stress and Linguistic Predictability Influence Proofreading Behavior.

Authors:  Lindsay N Harris; Charles A Perfetti
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2016-02-09

7.  The Word Frequency Effect on Saccade Targeting during Chinese Reading: Evidence from a Survival Analysis of Saccade Length.

Authors:  Yanping Liu; Ren Huang; Yugang Li; Dingguo Gao
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-02-06

8.  The impact of skim reading and navigation when reading hyperlinks on the web.

Authors:  Gemma Fitzsimmons; Lewis T Jayes; Mark J Weal; Denis Drieghe
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-09-17       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  One page of text: Eye movements during regular and thorough reading, skimming, and spell checking.

Authors:  Alexander Strukelj; Diederick C Niehorster
Journal:  J Eye Mov Res       Date:  2018-02-26       Impact factor: 0.957

Review 10.  Salience and Attention in Surprisal-Based Accounts of Language Processing.

Authors:  Alessandra Zarcone; Marten van Schijndel; Jorrig Vogels; Vera Demberg
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2016-06-06
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.