Several theorists have argued that readers fail to detect semantic anomalies during reading, and that these effects are indicative of “shallow processing” behaviours. Previous studies of semantic anomalies such as the Moses illusion have focused primarily on explicit detection tasks. In the present study, we examined participants’ eye movements as they read true/false statements that were non-anomalous, or contained a semantic anomaly that was either high- or low-related to the correct information. Analyses of reading behaviours revealed that only low-related detected anomalies resulted in initial processing difficulty, but both detected and undetected anomalies, regardless of whether they were high- or low-related, resulted in delayed processing difficulty. The results extend previous findings on semantic anomalies and are discussed in terms of the RI-Val model of text processing.
AlbrechtJ. E.O’BrienE. J. (1991). Effects of centrality on retrieval of text-based concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17(5), 932–939.
2.
AlbrechtJ. E.O’BrienE. J. (1993). Updating a mental model: Maintaining both local and global coherence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 19, 1061–1070.
3.
BartonS. B.SanfordA. J. (1993). A case study of anomaly detection: Shallow semantic processing and cohesion establishment. Memory & Cognition, 21, 477–487.
4.
BohanJ.SanfordA. (2008). Semantic anomalies at the borderline of consciousness: An eye-tracking investigation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 232–239.
5.
BrysbaertM.NewW. (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.
CookA. E.GuéraudS. (2005). What have we been missing? The role of general world knowledge in discourse processing. Discourse Processes, 39, 365–378.
8.
CookA. E.HalleranJ. G.O’BrienE. J. (1998). What is readily available during reading? A memory-based view of text processing. Discourse Processes, 26, 109–129.
9.
CookA. E.MyersJ. L. (2004). Processing discourse roles in scripted narratives: The influences of context and world knowledge. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 268–288.
10.
CookA. E.O’BrienE. J. (2014). Knowledge activation, integration, and validation during narrative text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 51, 26–49.
11.
CookA. E.WeiW. (2017). Using eye movements to study reading processes: Methodological considerations. In WasC. A.SansoitF. J.MorrisB. J. (Eds.), Eye tracking technology applications in educational research (pp. 27–47). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
12.
DanemanM.HannonB.BurtonC. (2006). Are there age-related differences in shallow semantic processing of text? Evidence from eye movements. Discourse Processes, 42(2), 177–203.
13.
DanemanM.LennertzT.HannonB. (2007). Shallow semantic processing of text: Evidence from eye movements. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(1), 83–105.
14.
EricksonT. D.MattsonM. E. (1981). From words to meaning: A semantic illusion. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 540–551.
15.
FerreiraF.FerraroV.BaileyK. G. D. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11–15.
16.
HannonB.DanemanM. (2004). Shallow semantic processing of text: An individual-differences account. Discourse Processes, 37(3), 187–204.
17.
KamasE. N.RederL. M. (1995). The role of familiarity in cognitive processing. In LorchR. F.O’BrienE. J. (Eds.), Sources of coherence in reading (pp. 177–202). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18.
KamasE. N.RederL. M.AyersM. S. (1996). Partial matching in the Moses Illusion: Response bias not sensitivity. Memory & Cognition, 24(6), 687–699.
19.
KendeouP.SmithE. R.O’BrienE. J. (2013). Updating during reading comprehension: Why causality matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 854–865.
20.
KintschW. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163–182.
21.
KintschW. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
22.
LongD. L.LeaR. B. (2005). Have we been searching for meaning in all the wrong places? Defining the “search after meaning” principle in comprehension. Discourse processes, 39(2-3), 279–298.
23.
MyersJ. L.CookA. E.KambeG.MasonR. A.O’BrienE. J. (2000). Semantic and episodic effects on bridging inferences. Discourse Processes, 29, 179–199.
24.
MyersJ. L.O’BrienE. J. (1998). Accessing the discourse representation during reading. Discourse Processes, 26(2&3), 131–157.
25.
O’BrienE. J.AlbrechtJ. E. (1992). Comprehension strategies in the development of a mental model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 777–784.
26.
O’BrienE. J.CookA. E. (2016a). Coherence threshold and the continuity of processing: The RI-Val model of comprehension. Discourse Processes, 53, 326–338.
27.
O’BrienE. J.CookA. E. (2016b). Separating the activation, integration, and validation components of reading. In RossB. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 65, pp. 249–276). New York, NY: Elsevier.
28.
O’BrienE. J.CookA. E.GuéraudS. (2010). Accessibility of outdated information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 36, 979–991.
29.
O’BrienE. J.MyersJ. L. (1999). Text comprehension: A view from the bottom up. In GoldmanS. R.GraesserA. C.van den BroekP. (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 35–53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
30.
O’BrienE. J.RizzellaM. L.AlbrechtJ. E.HalleranJ. G. (1998). Updating a situation model: A memory-based text processing view. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 1200–1210.
31.
van OostendorpH.KokI. (1990). Failing to notice errors in sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes, 5(2), 105–113.
32.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33.
RaynerK. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422.
34.
RaynerK.ChaceK. H.SlatteryT. J.AshbyJ. (2006). Eye movements as reflections of comprehension processes in reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(3), 241–255.
35.
RederL. M.CleeremansA. (1990). The role of partial matches in comprehension: The Moses illusion revisited. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 25, 233–258.
36.
RederL. M.KusbitG. W. (1991). Locus of the Moses illusion: Imperfect encoding, retrieval, or match?Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 385–406.
37.
SanfordA. J. (2002). Context, attention and depth of processing during interpretation. Mind & language, 17(1-2), 188–206.
38.
SanfordA. J.EmmottC. (2012). Mind, brain and narrative. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
39.
SanfordA. J.GarrodS. C. (1989). What, when, and how?: Questions of immediacy in anaphoric reference resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, SI235–SI262.
40.
SanfordA. J.GraesserA. C. (2006). Shallow processing and underspecification. Discourse Processes, 42(2), 99–108.
41.
SanfordA. J.LeutholdH.BohanJ.SanfordA. J. S. (2011). Anomalies at the borderline of awareness: An ERP study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 514–523.
42.
SanfordA. J.SanfordA. J.FilikR.MolleJ. (2005). Depth of lexical-semantic processing and sentential load. Journal of Memory and Language, 53(3), 378–396.
43.
SanfordA. J.SanfordA. J.MolleJ.EmmottC. (2006). Shallow processing and attention capture in written and spoken discourse. Discourse Processes, 42(2), 109–130.
44.
SanfordA. J.SturtP. (2002). Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 382–386.
45.
SinatraG. M. (1990). Convergence of listening and reading processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 115–130.
46.
SturtP.SanfordA. J.StewartA.DawydiakE. (2004). Linguistic focus and good-enough representations: An application of the change-detection paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(5), 882–888.
47.
WardP.SturtP. (2007). Linguistic focus and memory: An eye movement study. Memory & Cognition, 35(1), 73–86.
