臧传丽(), 鹿子佳, 张志超

天津师范大学心理与行为研究院, 天津 300074

收稿日期:2018-04-17出版日期:2019-01-15发布日期:2018-11-23


基金资助:* 国家自然科学基金项目(31571122, 81471629, 31600902);天津市人才发展特殊支持计划青年拔尖人才项目和天津师范大学****创新团队项目(52WZ1702)

The role of semantic and syntactic information in parafoveal prcoessing during reading

ZANG Chuanli(), LU Zijia, ZHANG Zhichao

Academy of Psychology and Behavior, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300074, China

Received:2018-04-17Online:2019-01-15Published:2018-11-23

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 读者能够从副中央凹中提取到什么类型的信息, 是当前阅读眼动研究领域关注的焦点问题.当前普遍认为低水平信息(如正字法信息)可以在副中央凹中得以加工, 但是高水平的信息(如语义和句法信息)能否从副中央凹中进行提取存在争议.本文总结了近年来高水平信息在副中央凹加工的研究进展, 包括拼音文字和非拼音文字(如中文)阅读过程中语义和句法预视效益的研究现状及影响因素, 当前眼动控制模型(如E-Z读者和SWIFT)对预视效益的解释和不足之处, 最后提出未来关于语义和句法预视加工的研究方向.

参考文献 40

1	白学军, 刘娟, 臧传丽, 张慢慢, 郭晓峰, 闫国利 . (2011). 中文阅读过程中的副中央凹预视效应. 心理科学进展,19(12), 1721-1729.
2	陈庆荣, 邓铸 . (2006). 阅读中的眼动控制理论与SWIFT模型. 心理科学进展,14(5), 675-681. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-3710.2006.05.005URL
3	陈庆荣, 王梦娟, 刘慧凝, 谭顶良, 邓铸, 徐晓东 . (2011). 语言认知中眼动和ERP结合的理论,技术路径及其应用. 心理科学进展,19(2), 264-273. doi: 10.3724.SP.J.1042.2011.00264URL
4	胡笑羽, 白学军, 闫国利 . (2010). 副中央凹-中央凹效应的研究现状及展望. 心理科学进展,18(3), 412-419.
5	刘丽萍, 刘海健, 胡笑羽 . (2006). Swift-Ⅱ: 阅读中眼跳发生的动力学模型. 心理与行为研究, 4(3), 230-235.
6	隋雪, 沈彤, 吴琼, 李莹 . (2013). 阅读眼动控制模型的中文研究——串行和并行. 辽宁师范大学学报(社会科学版) 35(5), 672-679.
7	王春茂, 彭聃龄 . (1999). 合成词加工中的词频,词素频率及语义透明度. 心理学报,31(3), 266-273.
8	闫国利, 王丽红, 巫金根, 白学军 . (2011). 不同年级学生阅读知觉广度及预视效益的眼动研究. 心理学报,43(3), 249-263. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2011.00249URL
9	Abbott M.J., & Staub A. (2015). The effect of plausibility on eye movements in reading: Testing E-Z reader's null predictions. Journal of Memory and Language, 85, 76-87. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2015.07.002URL
10	Angele B., & Rayner K. (2013). Processing the in the parafovea: Are articles skipped automatically? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(2), 649-662. doi: 10.1037/a0029294URLpmid: 22799285
11	Angele B., Laishley A. E., Rayner K., & Liversedge S. P . (2014). The effect of high- and low-frequency previews and sentential fit on word skipping during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(4), 1181-1203. doi: 10.1037/a0036396URLpmid: 4100595
12	Braze D., Shankweiler D., Ni W., & Palumbo L. C . (2002). Readers’ eye movements distinguish anomalies of form and content. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31(1), 25-44.
13	Brothers T., &Traxler M.J . (2016). Anticipating syntax during reading: Evidence from the boundary change paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(12), 1894-1906. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000257URLpmid: 27123753
14	Dimigen O., Kliegl R., & Sommer W . (2012). Trans- saccadic parafoveal preview benefits in fluent reading: A study with fixation-related brain potentials. NeuroImage, 62(1), 381-393. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.006URLpmid: 22521255
15	Hohenstein S., & Kliegl R. (2013). Semantic preview benefit during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(1), 166-190. doi: 10.1037/a0033670URLpmid: 23895448
16	Hohenstein S., & Kliegl R. (2013). Semantic preview benefit during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(1), 166-190. doi: 10.1037/a0033670URLpmid: 23895448
17	Jr Clifton C., Ferreira F., Henderson J. M., Inhoff A. W., Liversedge S. P., Reichle E. D., & Schotter E. R . (2016). Eye movements in reading and information processing: Keithrayner’s 40 year legacy. Journal of Memory and Language, 86, 1-19.
18	Kretzschmar F., Schlesewsky M., & Staub A . (2015). Dissociating word frequency and predictability effects in reading: Evidence from coregistration of eye movements and EEG. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 41(6), 1648-1662. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000128URLpmid: 26010829
19	Matsuki K., Chow T., Hare M., Elman J. L., Scheepers C., & Mcrae K . (2011). Event-based plausibility immediately influences on-line language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(4), 913-934. doi: 10.1037/a0022964URLpmid: 3130834
20	McElree B., & Griffith T. (1995). Syntactic and thematic processing in sentence comprehension: Evidence for a temporal dissociation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(1), 134-157. doi: 10.1037//0278-7393.21.1.134URL
21	Niefind F., & Dimigen O. (2016). Dissociating parafoveal preview benefit and parafovea-on-fovea effects during reading: A combined eye tracking and EEG study. Psychophysiology, 53(12), 1784-1798. doi: 10.1111/psyp.12765URLpmid: 27680711
22	Rayner K. . (1975). The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 7(1), 65-81. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(75)90005-5URL
23	Rayner K. . (2009). The Thirty Fifth Sir Frederick Bartlett Lecture: Eye movements and attention during reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1457-1506.
24	Rayner K., Balota D. A., & Pollatsek A . (1986). Against parafoveal semantic preprocessing during eye fixations in reading. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 40(4), 473-483. doi: 10.1037/h0080111URLpmid: 3502884
25	Rayner K., &Schotter E.R . (2014). Semantic preview benefit in reading English: The effect of initial letter capitalization. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 40(4), 1617-1628. doi: 10.1037/a0036763URLpmid: 24820439
26	Rayner K., Schotter E. R., & Drieghe D . (2014). Lack of semantic parafoveal preview benefit in reading revisited. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(4), 1067-1072. doi: 10.3758/s13423-014-0582-9URLpmid: 24496738
27	Reichle E. D. (2011). Serial-attention models of reading. In S. P. Liversedge, I. D. Gilchrist, & S. Everling (Eds.), Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford handbook on eye movements (pp. 767-786). New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
28	Schotter E.R . (2013). Synonyms provide semantic preview benefit in English. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(4), 619-633. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2013.09.002URLpmid: 24347813
29	Schotter E.R., & Jia A. (2016). Semantic and plausibility preview benefit effects in English: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(12), 1839-1866. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000281URLpmid: 27123754
30	Schotter E. R., Lee M., Reiderman M., & Rayner K . (2015). The effect of contextual constraint on parafoveal processing in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 83, 118-139. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2015.04.005URLpmid: 4525713
31	Schotter E.R., & Leinenger M. (2016). Reversed preview benefit effects: Forced fixations emphasize the importance of parafoveal vision for efficient reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 42(12), 2039-2067. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000270URLpmid: 27732044
32	Schotter E. R., Reichle E. D., & Rayner K . (2014). Rethinking parafoveal processing in reading: Serial-attention models can account for semantic preview benefit and N+2 preview effects. Visual Cognition, 22(3-4), 309-333.
33	Snell J., Meeter M., & Grainger J . (2017). Evidence for simultaneous syntactic processing of multiple words during reading. Plos One, 12(3), e0173720. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173720URLpmid: 5344498
34	Veldre A., & Andrews S. (2018). Beyond cloze probability: Parafoveal processing of semantic and syntactic information during reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 100, 1-17. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2017.12.002URL
35	Wang S., Chen H-C., Yang J., & Mo L . (2008). Immediacy of integration in discourse comprehension: Evidence from Chinese readers’ eye movements. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(2), 241-257.
36	White S. J., Rayner K., & Liversedge S. P . (2005). Eye movements and the modulation of parafoveal processing by foveal processing difficulty: A reexamination. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(5), 891-896. doi: 10.3758/BF03196782URLpmid: 16524007
37	Yan M., Richter E. M., Shu H., & Kliegl R . (2009). Readers of Chinese extract semantic information from parafoveal words. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(3), 561-566. doi: 10.3758/PBR.16.3.561URLpmid: 19451385
38	Yan M., Zhou W., Shu H., & Kliegl R . (2012). Lexical and sublexical semantic preview benefits in Chinese reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(4), 1069-1075. doi: 10.1037/a0026935URLpmid: 22369254
39	Yang J., Wang S., Tong X., & Rayner K . (2012). Semantic and plausibility effects on preview benefit during eye fixations in Chinese reading. Reading and Writing, 25(5), 1031-1052. doi: 10.1007/s11145-010-9281-8URLpmid: 3337412
40	Zang C., Zhang M., Bai X., Yan G., Angele B., & Liversedge S. P . (2018). Skipping of the very-high-frequency structural particle de, in Chinese reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(1), 152-160. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2016.1272617URLpmid: 27998212

相关文章 15

[1]	李雨桐, 隋雪. 词汇共现频率视角下语义联想效应及其神经机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(1): 112-122.
[2]	程士静, 何文广. 语义认知的习得、发展和老化及其神经机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(7): 1156-1163.
[3]	张慢慢, 臧传丽, 白学军. 中文阅读中副中央凹预加工的范围与程度[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(6): 871-882.
[4]	张晶晶, 梁啸岳, 陈伊笛, 陈庆荣. 音乐句法加工的认知机制与音乐结构的影响模式[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(6): 883-892.
[5]	刘文娟, 董及美, 崔梦舒, 陈功香. 成人在语境中的母语词汇意义学习[J]. 心理科学进展, 2019, 27(9): 1574-1584.
[6]	邓珏, 叶一舵, 陈言放. 音乐句法的内隐习得及其对图式性期待的影响 *[J]. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26(6): 1012-1018.
[7]	杨剑峰, 党敏, 张瑞, 王小娟. 汉字阅读的语义神经回路及其与语音回路的协作机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26(3): 381-390.
[8]	于文勃, 梁丹丹. 口语加工中的词语切分线索[J]. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26(10): 1765-1774.
[9]	胡晶晶, 曹立人, John Mollonb. 掩蔽刺激与目标刺激的语义相似度对掩蔽效果的影响[J]. 心理科学进展, 2017, 25(suppl.): 4-4.
[10]	李琳, 刘雯, 隋雪. 句法加工中的预测现象及实验证据[J]. 心理科学进展, 2017, 25(7): 1122-1131.
[11]	戴好运;徐晓东. 违实语义的加工机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2017, 25(5): 769-777.
[12]	李玉刚;黄忍;滑慧敏;李兴珊. 阅读中的眼跳目标选择问题[J]. 心理科学进展, 2017, 25(3): 404-412.
[13]	张晶晶, 杨玉芳. 音乐句法加工的影响因素[J]. 心理科学进展, 2017, 25(11): 1823-1830.
[14]	赵楠;公艳艳;赵亮;陈强;王勇慧. 行动语义、客体背景和判断任务对客体动作承载性的影响[J]. 心理科学进展, 2016, 24(11): 1747-1757.
[15]	何文广. 二语句法加工的认知机制、影响因素及其神经基础[J]. 心理科学进展, 2015, 23(9): 1540-1549.

PDF全文下载地址:

http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/CN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=4562