Literature DB >> 24747167

Don't believe what you read (only once): comprehension is supported by regressions during reading.

Elizabeth R Schotter1, Randy Tran2, Keith Rayner2.   

Abstract

Recent Web apps have spurred excitement around the prospect of achieving speed reading by eliminating eye movements (i.e., with rapid serial visual presentation, or RSVP, in which words are presented briefly one at a time and sequentially). Our experiment using a novel trailing-mask paradigm contradicts these claims. Subjects read normally or while the display of text was manipulated such that each word was masked once the reader's eyes moved past it. This manipulation created a scenario similar to RSVP: The reader could read each word only once; regressions (i.e., rereadings of words), which are a natural part of the reading process, were functionally eliminated. Crucially, the inability to regress affected comprehension negatively. Furthermore, this effect was not confined to ambiguous sentences. These data suggest that regressions contribute to the ability to understand what one has read and call into question the viability of speed-reading apps that eliminate eye movements (e.g., those that use RSVP).
© The Author(s) 2014.

Entities:  

Keywords:  comprehension; eye movements; reading

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24747167     DOI: 10.1177/0956797614531148

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Sci        ISSN: 0956-7976


  20 in total

1.  Regressions during reading: The cost depends on the cause.

Authors:  Michael A Eskenazi; Jocelyn R Folk
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2017-08

2.  Eye-tracking to Distinguish Comprehension-based and Oculomotor-based Regressive Eye Movements During Reading.

Authors:  Jocelyn R Folk; Michael A Eskenazi
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2018-10-18       Impact factor: 1.355

3.  Lack of selectivity for syntax relative to word meanings throughout the language network.

Authors:  Evelina Fedorenko; Idan Asher Blank; Matthew Siegelman; Zachary Mineroff
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2020-06-20

4.  Prediction as a basis for skilled reading: insights from modern language models.

Authors:  Benedetta Cevoli; Chris Watkins; Kathleen Rastle
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2022-06-15       Impact factor: 3.653

5.  Recovery from misinterpretations during online sentence processing.

Authors:  Lena M Blott; Jennifer M Rodd; Fernanda Ferreira; Jane E Warren
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2020-11-30       Impact factor: 3.140

6.  Incremental Language Comprehension Difficulty Predicts Activity in the Language Network but Not the Multiple Demand Network.

Authors:  Leila Wehbe; Idan Asher Blank; Cory Shain; Richard Futrell; Roger Levy; Titus von der Malsburg; Nathaniel Smith; Edward Gibson; Evelina Fedorenko
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2021-07-29       Impact factor: 4.861

7.  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

8.  The neural substrates of natural reading: a comparison of normal and nonword text using eyetracking and fMRI.

Authors:  Wonil Choi; Rutvik H Desai; John M Henderson
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2014-12-23       Impact factor: 3.169

9.  Perceptual and Cognitive Factors Imposing "Speed Limits" on Reading Rate: A Study with the Rapid Serial Visual Presentation.

Authors:  Silvia Primativo; Donatella Spinelli; Pierluigi Zoccolotti; Maria De Luca; Marialuisa Martelli
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-04-18       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Persistence in eye movement during visual search.

Authors:  Tatiana A Amor; Saulo D S Reis; Daniel Campos; Hans J Herrmann; José S Andrade
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-02-11       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.