Recording eye movements provides information on the time-course of word recognition during reading. Juhasz and Rayner [Juhasz, B. J., & Rayner, K. (2003). Investigating the effects of a set of intercorrelated variables on eye fixation durations in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 29, 1312–1318] examined the impact of five word recognition variables, including familiarity and age-of-acquisition (AoA), on fixation durations. All variables impacted fixation durations, but the time-course differed. However, the study focused on relatively short, morphologically simple words. Eye movements are also informative for examining the processing of morphologically complex words such as compound words. The present study further examined the time-course of lexical and semantic variables during morphological processing. A total of 120 English compound words that varied in familiarity, AoA, semantic transparency, lexeme meaning dominance, sensory experience rating (SER), and imageability were selected. The impact of these variables on fixation durations was examined when length, word frequency, and lexeme frequencies were controlled in a regression model. The most robust effects were found for familiarity and AoA, indicating that a reader’s experience with compound words significantly impacts compound recognition. These results provide insight into semantic processing of morphologically complex words during reading.
AmselB. D.UrbachT. P.KutasM. (2012). Perceptual and motor attribute ratings for 559 object concepts. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 1028–1041.
2.
AndrewsS.MillerB.RaynerK. (2004). Eye movements and morphological segmentation of compound words: There is a mouse in mousetrap. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 285–311.
3.
BaayenR. H.MilinP.RamscarM. (2016). Frequency in lexical processing. Aphasiology. doi:10.1080/02687038.2016.1147767
4.
BalotaD. A.YapM. J.CorteseM. J.HutchisonK. A.KesslerB.LoftisB.. . . TreimanR. (2007). The English Lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445–459.
5.
BalotaD. A.YapM. J.HutchinsonK. A.CorteseM. J. (2012). Megastudies: What do millions (or so) of trials tell us about lexical processing? In AdelmanJ. S. (Eds.), Visual word recognition volume 1: Models and methods (pp. 90–115). Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press.
6.
BarsalouL. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.
7.
BarsalouL. W.SantosA.SimmonsW. K.WilsonC. D. (2008). Language and simulation in conceptual processing. In De VegaM.GlenbergA. M.GraesserA. C. A. (Eds.), Symbols, embodiment, and meaning (pp. 245–283). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.
9.
BehrmannM.ShomsteinS. S.BlackS. E.BartonJ. J. S. (2001). The eye movements of pure alexic patients during reading and nonreading tasks. Neuropsychologia, 39, 983–1002.
10.
BertramR.HyönäJ. (2003). The length of a complex word modifies the role of morphological structure: Evidence from eye movements when reading short and long Finnish compounds. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 615–634.
11.
BoninP.MéotA.FerrandL.BugaïskaA. (2015). Sensory experience ratings (SERs) for 1,659 French words: Relationships with other psycholinguistic variables and visual word recognition. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 813–825.
12.
BrysbaertM. (2016). Age of acquisition ratings score better on criterion validity than frequency trajectory of ratings “corrected” for frequency. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. doi:10.1080/17470218.2016.1172097
13.
BrysbaertM.CorteseM. J. (2011). Do the effects of subjective frequency and age of acquisition survive better word frequency norms?The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 545–559.
14.
BrysbaertM.NewB. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 977–990.
15.
CorteseM. J.FugettA. (2004). Imageability ratings for 3,000 monosyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 384–387.
16.
CorteseM. J.KhannaM. M. (2007). Age of acquisition predicts naming and lexical-decision performance above and beyond 22 other predictor variables: An analysis of 2,342 words. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 1072–1082.
17.
CorteseM. J.KhannaM. M. (2008). Age of acquisition ratings for 3,000 monosyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 791–794.
18.
CorteseM. J.SchockJ. (2013). Imageability and age of acquisition effects in disyllabic word recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 946–972.
19.
CushmanC. L.JohnsonR. L. (2011). Age-of-acquisition effects in pure alexia. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 1726–1742.
20.
FrancisW.KučeraH. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage: Lexicon and grammar. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
21.
FrissonS.Niswander-KlementE.PollatsekA. (2008). The role of semantic transparency in the processing of English compound words. British Journal of Psychology, 99, 87–107.
22.
HenryR.KupermanV. (2013). Semantic growth of morphological families in English. Psihologija, 46(4), 479–495.
23.
HyönäJ. (2012). The role of visual acuity and segmentation cues in compound word identification. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 188–00.
24.
HyönäJ.PollatsekA. (1998). Reading Finnish compound words: Eye fixations are affected by component morphemes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1612–1627.
25.
InhoffA. W.StarrM. S.SolomonM.PlackeL. (2008). Eye movements during the reading of compound words and the influence of lexeme meaning. Memory & Cognition, 36, 675–687.
26.
JiH.GagnéC. L.SpaldingT. L. (2011). Benefits and costs of lexical decomposition and semantic integration during the processing of transparent and opaque English compounds. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 406–430.
27.
JohnstonR. A.BarryC. (2006). Age of acquisition and lexical processing. Visual Cognition, 13, 789–845.
28.
JosephH. S. S. L.WonnacottE.ForbesP.NationK. (2014). Becoming a written word: Eye movements reveal order of acquisition effects following incidental exposure to new words during silent reading. Cognition, 133, 238–248.
29.
JuhaszB. J. (2005). Age-of-acquisition effects in word and picture identification. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 684–712.
30.
JuhaszB. J. (2007). The influence of semantic transparency on eye movements during English compound word recognition. In vonGompelR.MurrayW.FischerM. (Eds.), Eye movements: A window on mind and brain (pp. 373–389). Boston, MA: Elsevier.
31.
JuhaszB. J. (2008). The processing of compound words in English: Effects of word length on eye movements during reading. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 1057–1088.
32.
JuhaszB. J.LaiY.-H.WoodcockM. L. (2015). A database of 629 English compound words: Ratings of familiarity, lexeme meaning dominance, semantic transparency, age-of-acquisition, imageability, and sensory experience. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 1004–1009.
33.
JuhaszB. J.PollatsekA. (2011). Lexical influences on eye movements in reading. In LiversedgeS.P.GilchristI.D.EverlingS. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook on eye movements (pp. 873–893). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34.
JuhaszB. J.RaynerK. (2003). Investigating the effects of a set of intercorrelated variables on eye fixation durations in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 29, 1312–1318.
35.
JuhaszB. J.RaynerK. (2006). The role of age-of-acquisition and word frequency in reading: Evidence from eye fixation durations. Visual Cognition, 13, 846–863.
36.
JuhaszB. J.StarrM.InhoffA. W.PlackeL. (2003). The effects of morphology on the processing of compound words: Evidence from naming, lexical decisions, and eye fixations. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 223–244.
37.
JuhaszB. J.YapM. (2013). Sensory experience ratings for over 5,000 mono- and disyllabic words. Behavior Research methods, 45, 160–168.
38.
JuhaszB. J.YapM. J.DickeJ.TaylorS. C.GullickM. M. (2011). Tangible words are recognized faster: The grounding of meaning in sensory and perceptual systems. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 1683–1691.
39.
KupermanV. (2013). Accentuate the positive: Semantic access in English compounds. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–10.
40.
KupermanV.BertramR.BaayenR. H. (2008). Morphological dynamics in compound processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 1089–1132.
41.
LibbenG. (1998). Semantic transparency in the processing of compounds: Consequences for representation, processing, and impairment. Brain and Language, 61, 30–44.
42.
LibbenG. (2005). Everything is psycholinguistics: Material and methodological considerations in the study of compound processing. Canadian Journal of Psycholinguistics, 50, 267–283.
43.
von der MalsburgT.AngeleB. (2016). False positives and other statistical errors in standard analyses of eye movements in reading. arXiv preprint arXiv:1504.06896.
44.
MarelliM.LuzzattiC. (2012). Frequency effects in the processing of Italian nominal compounds: Modulation of headedness and semantic transparency. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 644–664.
45.
PaivioA.YuilleJ. C.MadiganS. A. (1968). Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76, 1–25.
46.
PollatsekA.HyönäJ. (2005). The role of semantic transparency in the processing of Finnish compound words. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 261–290.
47.
PollatsekA.HyönäJ.BertramR. (2000). The role of morphological constituents in reading Finnish compound words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26(2), 820–833.
48.
RaynerK. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1457–1506.
49.
RaynerK.DuffyS. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition, 14, 191–201.
50.
RaynerK.SerenoS. C.RaneyG. E. (1996). Eye movement control in reading: A comparison of two types of models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1188–1200.
51.
R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/.
52.
SchillingH. E. H.RaynerK.ChumbleyJ. I. (1998). Comparing naming, lexical decision, and eye fixation times: Word frequency effects and individual differences. Memory & Cognition, 26, 1270–1281.
53.
SchmidtkeD.Van DykeJ. A.KupermanV. (2015). The role of semantic transparency on the processing of English compound words: Insights from individual differences [Abstract]. Abstracts of the 18th European Conference on Eye Movements. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 8, 1.
54.
SchockJ.CorteseM. J.KhannaM. M. (2012). Imageability ratings for 3000 disyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 374–379.
55.
SchockJ.CorteseM. J.KhannaM. M.ToppiS. (2012). Age of acquisition estimates for 3,000 disyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 971–977.
56.
SheikhN. A.TitoneD. A. (2013). Sensorimotor and linguistic information attenuate emotional word processing benefits: An eye-movement study. Emotion, 13, 1107–1121.
57.
SiakalukP.PexmanP.AguileraL.OwenW.SearsC. (2008). Evidence for the activation of sensorimotor information during visual word recognition: The body-object interaction effect. Cognition, 106, 433–443.
58.
SteyversM.TenenbaumJ. B. (2005). The large-scale structure of semantic networks: Statistical analyses and a model of semantic growth. Cognitive Science, 29, 41–78.
59.
UnderwoodG.PetleyK.ClewsS. (1990). Searching for information during sentence comprehension. In GronerR.d’YdewalleG.ParhamR. (Eds.), From eye to mind: Information acquisition in perception, search, and reading (pp. 191–203). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
60.
WilliamsR. S.MorrisR. K. (2004). Eye movements, word familiarity, and vocabulary acquisition. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 312–339.
61.
ZdrazilovaL.PexmanP. M. (2013). Grasping the invisible: Semantic processing of abstract words. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 1312–1318.
