![](http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/images/email.png)
1. 山东师范大学心理学院, 济南 250358
2. 济南大学教育与心理科学学院, 济南 250022
收稿日期:
2018-03-27出版日期:
2019-08-21发布日期:
2019-07-24通讯作者:
崔磊E-mail:cuilei_cn@163.com基金资助:
* 教育部人文社科项目(18YJC190001);山东省社科优势学科项目资助(19BYSJ46)Preview processing of between words and within words in Chinese reading: No word highlighting effect
GUAN Yiyun1, SONG Xini1, ZHENG Yuwei2, ZHANG yingliang1, CUI Lei1(![](http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/images/email.png)
1. School of Psychology, Shandong Normal University, Jinan 250358, China
2. School of Education and Psychological Science, Jinan University, Jinan 250022, China
Received:
2018-03-27Online:
2019-08-21Published:
2019-07-24Contact:
CUI Lei E-mail:cuilei_cn@163.com摘要/Abstract
摘要: 为了考察词语的属性特征对预视加工的影响, 实验操纵注视字与预视字是否属于一个语言单元, 利用眼动轨迹记录法并结合边界范式以探讨其对预视效应的影响。此外, 考察了词边界信息对词间词和词内词预视加工的影响。结果显示, 词内词的预视效应大于词间词, 词间阴影、非词阴影条件下的预视效应和正常条件之间没有差异。说明阴影提供的词边界对词间词和词内词的预视加工无影响, 支持词切分和词汇识别模型, 即词切分和词汇识别是同时进行的。
图/表 6
表1词间词和词内词的词汇属性统计
词汇属性 | 词间词 | 词内词 |
---|---|---|
词频(次/百万)* | 8.45 | 8.80 |
笔画数(笔) | 16.25 | 16.68 |
目标字的位置频率 | 39% | 42% |
表1词间词和词内词的词汇属性统计
词汇属性 | 词间词 | 词内词 |
---|---|---|
词频(次/百万)* | 8.45 | 8.80 |
笔画数(笔) | 16.25 | 16.68 |
目标字的位置频率 | 39% | 42% |
![](http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/fileup/0439-755X/FIGURE/2019-51-9/Images/0439-755X-51-9-969/img_1.png)
图1实验材料与范式举例
![](http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/fileup/0439-755X/FIGURE/2019-51-9/Images/0439-755X-51-9-969/img_1.png)
![](http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/fileup/0439-755X/FIGURE/2019-51-9/Images/0439-755X-51-9-969/img_3.png)
图2数据分析的兴趣区单位图示
![](http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/fileup/0439-755X/FIGURE/2019-51-9/Images/0439-755X-51-9-969/img_3.png)
表2被试在目标字上的眼动指标均值和标准差
眼动指标 | 词语类型 | 正常呈现 | 词间阴影 | 非词阴影 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I | D | PB | I | D | PB | I | D | PB | ||
首次注视时间* | 词内词 | 231 | 273 | 42 | 235 | 270 | 35 | 221 | 269 | 49 |
词间词 | 225 | 251 | 25 | 218 | 238 | 21 | 229 | 254 | 26 | |
凝视时间* | 词内词 | 243 | 303 | 60 | 250 | 305 | 55 | 236 | 301 | 65 |
词间词 | 234 | 272 | 38 | 232 | 258 | 27 | 238 | 281 | 44 | |
回视路径时间* | 词内词 | 291 | 406 | 115 | 302 | 381 | 78 | 289 | 419 | 130 |
词间词 | 286 | 344 | 58 | 283 | 322 | 39 | 285 | 341 | 57 | |
跳读率 | 词内词 | 0.17 | 0.15 | -0.02 | 0.21 | 0.15 | -0.06 | 0.17 | 0.16 | -0.02 |
词间词 | 0.19 | 0.19 | -0.001 | 0.24 | 0.24 | -0.001 | 0.22 | 0.22 | -0.003 |
表2被试在目标字上的眼动指标均值和标准差
眼动指标 | 词语类型 | 正常呈现 | 词间阴影 | 非词阴影 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I | D | PB | I | D | PB | I | D | PB | ||
首次注视时间* | 词内词 | 231 | 273 | 42 | 235 | 270 | 35 | 221 | 269 | 49 |
词间词 | 225 | 251 | 25 | 218 | 238 | 21 | 229 | 254 | 26 | |
凝视时间* | 词内词 | 243 | 303 | 60 | 250 | 305 | 55 | 236 | 301 | 65 |
词间词 | 234 | 272 | 38 | 232 | 258 | 27 | 238 | 281 | 44 | |
回视路径时间* | 词内词 | 291 | 406 | 115 | 302 | 381 | 78 | 289 | 419 | 130 |
词间词 | 286 | 344 | 58 | 283 | 322 | 39 | 285 | 341 | 57 | |
跳读率 | 词内词 | 0.17 | 0.15 | -0.02 | 0.21 | 0.15 | -0.06 | 0.17 | 0.16 | -0.02 |
词间词 | 0.19 | 0.19 | -0.001 | 0.24 | 0.24 | -0.001 | 0.22 | 0.22 | -0.003 |
![](http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/fileup/0439-755X/FIGURE/2019-51-9/Images/0439-755X-51-9-969/img_4.png)
图3数据分析的兴趣区单位图示
![](http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/fileup/0439-755X/FIGURE/2019-51-9/Images/0439-755X-51-9-969/img_4.png)
表3被试在目标区域上的眼动指标均值和标准差
眼动指标 | 词语类型 | 正常呈现 | 词间阴影 | 非词阴影 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I | D | PB | I | D | PB | I | D | PB | ||
首次注视时间* | 词内词 | 231 | 273 | 42 | 235 | 270 | 35 | 221 | 269 | 49 |
词间词 | 227 | 249 | 22 | 226 | 242 | 16 | 230 | 247 | 16 | |
凝视时间* | 词内词 | 243 | 303 | 60 | 250 | 305 | 55 | 236 | 301 | 65 |
词间词 | 324 | 381 | 57 | 322 | 370 | 47 | 355 | 420 | 64 | |
回视路径时间* | 词内词 | 291 | 406 | 115 | 302 | 381 | 78 | 289 | 419 | 130 |
词间词 | 393 | 497 | 103 | 394 | 469 | 73 | 441 | 517 | 76 | |
跳读率 | 词内词 | 0.17 | 0.15 | -0.2 | 0.21 | 0.15 | -0.06 | 0.17 | 0.16 | -0.02 |
词间词 | 0.05 | 0.04 | -0.01 | 0.05 | 0.05 | -0.002 | 0.06 | 0.04 | -0.02 |
表3被试在目标区域上的眼动指标均值和标准差
眼动指标 | 词语类型 | 正常呈现 | 词间阴影 | 非词阴影 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I | D | PB | I | D | PB | I | D | PB | ||
首次注视时间* | 词内词 | 231 | 273 | 42 | 235 | 270 | 35 | 221 | 269 | 49 |
词间词 | 227 | 249 | 22 | 226 | 242 | 16 | 230 | 247 | 16 | |
凝视时间* | 词内词 | 243 | 303 | 60 | 250 | 305 | 55 | 236 | 301 | 65 |
词间词 | 324 | 381 | 57 | 322 | 370 | 47 | 355 | 420 | 64 | |
回视路径时间* | 词内词 | 291 | 406 | 115 | 302 | 381 | 78 | 289 | 419 | 130 |
词间词 | 393 | 497 | 103 | 394 | 469 | 73 | 441 | 517 | 76 | |
跳读率 | 词内词 | 0.17 | 0.15 | -0.2 | 0.21 | 0.15 | -0.06 | 0.17 | 0.16 | -0.02 |
词间词 | 0.05 | 0.04 | -0.01 | 0.05 | 0.05 | -0.002 | 0.06 | 0.04 | -0.02 |
参考文献 42
1 | Bai X., Yan G., Liversedge S. P., Zang C., & Rayner K . ( 2008). Reading spaced and unspaced Chinese text: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.34( 5), 1277-1287. |
2 | Cui L., Drieghe D., Bai X., Yan G., & Liversedge S. P . ( 2014). Parafoveal preview benefit in unspaced and spaced Chinese reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(11),2172-2188. |
3 | Cui L., Drieghe D., Yan G., Bai X ., Chi, H. & Liversedge, S. P. ( 2013). Parafoveal processing across different lexical constituents in Chinese reading.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66,403-416. |
4 | Drieghe D., Brysbaert M., & Desmet T . ( 2005). Parafoveal-on-foveal effects on eye movements in text reading: Does an extra space make a difference. Vision Research, 45(13),1693-1706. |
5 | Drieghe D., Cui L., Yan G., Bai X., Chi H., & Liversedge S. P . ( 2017). The morphosyntactic structure of compound words influences parafoveal processing in Chinese reading.. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(1),1-28. |
6 | Drieghe D., Fitzsimmons G., & Liversedge S. P . ( 2017). Parafoveal preview effects in reading unspaced text. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance.43( 10), 1701-1716. |
7 | 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.2012.04.006 |
8 | Engbert R., Nuthmann A., Richter E. M., & Kliegl R . ( 2005). SWIFT: A dynamical model of saccade generation during reading.Psychological Review, 112,777-813. |
9 | Hoosain R. ( 1992). Psychological reality of the word in Chinese. In H.-C. Chen & O.J.L. Tzeng (Eds.), Language processing in Chinese (pp. 111-130). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland. |
10 | Hy?n? J., ( 1995). Do irregular letter combinations attract readers' attention? Evidence from fixation locations in words.[J] ournal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance.21( 1), 68-81. |
11 | Hy?n? J., Bertram R., & Pollatsek A . ( 2004). Are long compound words identified serially via their constituents? Evidence from an eye movement-contingent display change study. Memory & Cognition, 32(4),523-532. |
12 | Juhasz B. J., Pollatsek A., Hy?n? J., Drieghe D., & Rayner K . ( 2009). Parafoveal processing within and between words. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(7),1356-1376. |
13 | Li X., Rayner K., & Cave K. R . ( 2009). On the segmentation of Chinese words during reading. Cognitive Psychology, 58(4),525-552. |
14 | Li N., Wang S., Mo L., & Kliegl R . ( 2017). Contextual constraint and preview time modulate the semantic preview effect: Evidence from chinese sentence reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(1),1-32. |
15 | Liu Y., Reichle E. D., & Li X . ( 2015). Parafoveal processing affects outgoing saccade length during the reading of Chinese. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning.Memory, and Cognition, 41(4),1229-1236. |
16 | Liu Y., Reichle E. D., & Li X . ( 2016). The effect of word frequency and parafoveal preview on saccade length during the reading of Chinese. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(7),1008-1025. |
17 | Morris R. K., Rayner K., & Pollatsek A . ( 1990). Eye movement guidance in reading: The role of parafoveal letter and space information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16(2),268-281. |
18 | Perea M., &Acha J. , ( 2009). Space information is important for reading. Vision Research, 49(15),1994-2000. |
19 | Perea M., Tejero P., & Winskel H . ( 2015). Can colours be used to segment words when reading?. Acta Psychologica, 159,8-13. |
20 | Pollatsek A. & Rayner K. , ( 1982). Eye movement control in reading: The role of word boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8(6),817-833. |
21 | Rayner K. ( 1975). The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 7(1),65-81. |
22 | Rayner K. ( 1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3),372-422. |
23 | Rayner K. ( 2009). The thirty fifth Sir Frederick Bartlett lecture: Eye movements and attention in reading,scene perception, and visual search.. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62,1457-1506. |
24 | Rayner K., Ashby J., Pollatsek A., & Reichle E. D . ( 2004). The effects of frequency and predictability on eye fixations in reading: Lmplications for the E-Z Reader model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30(4),720-732. |
25 | 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. |
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. |
27 | 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. |
28 | Rayner K., White S. J., Kambe G., Miller B., & Liversedge S. P . ( 2003). On the processing of meaning from parafoveal vision during eye fixations in reading. In J. Hy?n?, R. Radach, & H. Deubel (Eds.), Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research (pp. 213-234). Amsterdam: Elsevier. |
29 | Schotter E.R . ( 2013). Synonyms provide semantic preview benefit in English. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(4),619-633. |
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. |
31 | Sheridan H., Reichle E. D., & Reingold E. M . ( 2016). Why does removing inter-word spaces produce reading deficits? The role of parafoveal processing. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review.23( 5), 1543-1552. |
32 | Vasilev M.R., &Angele B. , ( 2017). Parafoveal preview effects from word N + 1 and word N + 2 during reading: A critical review and Bayesian meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.24( 3), 666-689. |
33 | Wang S., Tong X., Yang J., & Leng Y . ( 2009). Semantic codes are obtained before word fixation in Chinese sentence reading: Evidence from eye-movements. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 41(3),220-232. |
34 | [ 王穗苹, 佟秀红, 杨锦绵, 冷英 . ( 2009). 中文句子阅读中语义信息对眼动预视效应的影响. 心理学报.41( 3), 220-232.] |
35 | Wei W., Li X., & Pollatsek A . ( 2013). Word properties of a fixated region affect outgoing saccade length in Chinese reading.Vision Research, 80,1-6. |
36 | Yan M., Kliegl R., Richter E ., Nuthmann, A. & Shu, H. ( 2010). Flexible saccade-target selection in Chinese reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(4),705-725. |
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. |
38 | Yan G. L., Xiong J. P., Zang C. L., Yu L. L., Cui L., & Bai X. J . ( 2013). Review of Eye-movement Measures in Reading Research. Advances in Psychological Science.21( 4), 589-605. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2013.00589 |
39 | [ 闫国利, 熊建萍, 臧传丽, 余莉莉, 崔磊, 白学军 . ( 2013). 阅读研究中的主要眼动指标评述. 心理科学进展.21( 4), 589-605.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2013.00589 |
40 | Yang J., Wang S., Xu Y., & Rayner K . ( 2009). Do Chinese readers obtain preview benefit from word n+2? Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(4),1192-1204. |
41 | Yen M-H., Radach R., Tzeng O. J-L., Hung D. L., & Tsai J-L . ( 2009). Early parafoveal processing in reading Chinese sentences. Acta Psychologica, 131(1),24-33. |
42 | Zang C., Wang Y., Bai X., Yan G., Drieghe D., & Liversedge S. P . ( 2016). The use of probabilistic lexicality cues for word segmentation in Chinese reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(3),548-560. |
相关文章 11
[1] | 白学军, 马杰, 李馨, 连坤予, 谭珂, 杨宇, 梁菲菲. 发展性阅读障碍儿童的新词习得及其改善[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(4): 471-483. |
[2] | 刘志方;张智君;杨桂芳. 中文阅读中的字词激活模式:来自提示词边界延时效应的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(9): 1082-1092. |
[3] | 苏衡;刘志方;曹立人. 中文阅读预视加工中的词频和预测性效应及其对词切分的启示:基于眼动的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(6): 625-636. |
[4] | 马利军;张积家. 汉语动宾结构惯用语加工的基本单元:来自词切分的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2014, 46(6): 754-764. |
[5] | 刘志方;闫国利;张智君;潘运;杨桂芳. 中文阅读中的预视效应与词切分[J]. 心理学报, 2013, 45(6): 614-625. |
[6] | 白学军,梁菲菲,闫国利,田瑾,臧传丽,孟红霞. 词边界信息在中文阅读眼跳目标选择中的作用:来自中文二语学习者的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2012, 44(7): 853-867. |
[7] | 张智君,刘志方,赵亚军,季靖. 汉语阅读过程中词切分的位置:一项基于眼动随动显示技术的研究[J]. 心理学报, 2012, 44(1): 51-62. |
[8] | 白学军,郭志英,顾俊娟,曹玉肖,闫国利. 词切分对日-汉双语者汉语阅读影响的眼动研究[J]. 心理学报, 2011, 43(11): 1273-1282. |
[9] | 沈德立,白学军,臧传丽,闫国利,冯本才,范晓红. 词切分对初****句子阅读影响的眼动研究[J]. 心理学报, 2010, 42(02): 159-172. |
[10] | 沈模卫,李忠平,张光强. 词切分与字间距对引导式汉语文本阅读工效的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2001, 33(5): 27-32. |
[11] | 杨玉芳,孙健. 词边界信息在句中的分布[J]. 心理学报, 1994, 26(1): 8-13. |
PDF全文下载地址:
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=4508