Literature DB >> 25962686

Focus takes time: structural effects on reading.

Matthew W Lowder1, Peter C Gordon2.   

Abstract

Previous eye-tracking work has yielded inconsistent evidence regarding whether readers spend more or less time encoding focused information compared with information that is not focused. We report the results of an eye-tracking experiment that used syntactic structure to manipulate whether a target word was linguistically defocused, neutral, or focused, while controlling for possible oculomotor differences across conditions. As the structure of the sentence made the target word increasingly more focused, reading times systematically increased. We propose that the longer reading times for linguistically focused words reflect deeper encoding, which explains previous findings showing that readers have better subsequent memory for focused versus defocused information.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clefts; Eye-tracking; Linguistic focus; Pseudoclefts; Syntax

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25962686      PMCID: PMC4641814          DOI: 10.3758/s13423-015-0843-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  20 in total

1.  Readers' sensitivity to linguistic cues in narratives: how salience influences anaphor resolution.

Authors:  Celia M Klin; Kristin M Weingartner; Alexandria E Guzmán; William H Levine
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2004-04

2.  Eye movements and word skipping during reading revisited.

Authors:  Denis Drieghe; Keith Rayner; Alexander Pollatsek
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 3.332

3.  Linguistic focus and memory: an eye movement study.

Authors:  Peter Ward; Patrick Sturt
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2007-01

4.  Intuitive knowledge of linguistic co-reference.

Authors:  P C Gordon; R Hendrick
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1997-03

5.  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

6.  Pronominalization and discourse coherence, discourse structure and pronoun interpretation.

Authors:  P C Gordon; K A Scearce
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1995-05

7.  Natural forces as agents: reconceptualizing the animate-inanimate distinction.

Authors:  Matthew W Lowder; Peter C Gordon
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2014-12-08

8.  It's hard to offend the college: effects of sentence structure on figurative-language processing.

Authors:  Matthew W Lowder; Peter C Gordon
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2013-02-18       Impact factor: 3.051

9.  The manuscript that we finished: structural separation reduces the cost of complement coercion.

Authors:  Matthew W Lowder; Peter C Gordon
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2014-07-07       Impact factor: 3.051

10.  Newness, Givenness and Discourse Updating: Evidence from Eye Movements.

Authors:  Ashley Benatar; Charles Clifton
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2014-02-01       Impact factor: 3.059

View more
  4 in total

1.  Prediction in the Processing of Repair Disfluencies.

Authors:  Matthew W Lowder; Fernanda Ferreira
Journal:  Lang Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2015-04-21       Impact factor: 2.331

2.  Eye-Tracking and Corpus-Based Analyses of Syntax-Semantics Interactions in Complement Coercion.

Authors:  Matthew W Lowder; Peter C Gordon
Journal:  Lang Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2016-05-19       Impact factor: 2.331

3.  Prediction in the processing of repair disfluencies: Evidence from the visual-world paradigm.

Authors:  Matthew W Lowder; Fernanda Ferreira
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2016-02-11       Impact factor: 3.051

4.  Processing implicit control: evidence from reading times.

Authors:  Michael McCourt; Jeffrey J Green; Ellen Lau; Alexander Williams
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-10-27
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.