How do readers decide whether to skip or fixate a word? Angele and Rayner [2013. Processing the in the parafovea: Are articles skipped automatically? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 649–662] showed that English readers base skipping decisions on the parafoveal information available, but not the sentential context. Due to the increased visual density of the language, Chinese readers may be able to process a parafoveal word and integrate it with the sentence context to a greater extent than English readers. Consequently, influences on skipping decisions in Chinese may differ from those in English. In a boundary paradigm experiment, participants read sentences containing a single-character target verb (e.g., 取 meaning get) whose preview was manipulated in three conditions: identity preview; a preview consisting of the syntactically anomalous high-frequency structural particle de (的), or a pseudocharacter preview. The results showed that Chinese readers were more likely to skip the target when the preview was de than in either of the other conditions, suggesting that de-skipping is triggered by the parafoveal preview of a highly frequent particle word rather than on the likelihood of the upcoming word given the sentential context.
AbbottM. J.AngeleB. (2017). Preferential skipping of function words during reading. Manuscript submitted to QJEP Special Issue.
2.
AbbottM. J.AngeleB.AhnY. D.RaynerK. (2015). Skipping syntactically illegal the previews: The role of predictability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(6), 1703–1714.
3.
AngeleB.LaishleyA. E.RaynerK.LiversedgeS. 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, 1181–1203.
4.
AngeleB.RaynerK. (2013). Processing the in the parafovea: Are articles skipped automatically?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 649–662.
5.
BaiX.YanG.LiversedgeS. P.ZangC.RaynerK. (2008). Reading spaced and unspaced Chinese text: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 1277–1287.
6.
BarrD. J.LevyR.ScheepersC.TilyH. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.
7.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.
8.
CaiQ.BrysbaertM. (2010). SUBTLEX-CH: Chinese word and character frequencies based on film subtitles. PLoS ONE, 5 (6), e10729. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010729.
9.
EngbertR.KlieglR. (2011). Parallel graded attention models of reading. In LiversedgeS. P.GilchristI. D.EverlingS. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of eye movements (pp. 787–800). New York: Oxford University Press.
10.
EngbertR.NuthmannA.RichterE. M.KlieglR. (2005). SWIFT: A dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. Psychological Review, 112, 777–813.
11.
HoosainR. (1992). Psychological reality of the word in Chinese. In ChenH.-C.TzengO. J. L. (Eds.), Language processing in Chinese (pp. 111–130). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
12.
InhoffA. W.LiuW. (1998). The perceptual span and oculomotor activity during the reading of Chinese sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 20–34.
13.
InhoffA. W.RadachR.StarrM.GreenbergS. (2000). Allocation of visuo-spatial attention and saccade programming during reading. In KennedyA.RadachR.HellerD.PynteJ. (Eds.), Reading as a perceptual process (pp. 221–246). Oxford: North-Holland/Elsevier.
14.
LiX.BicknellK.LiuP.WeiW.RaynerK. (2014). Reading is fundamentally similar across disparate writing systems: A systematic characterization of how words and characters influence eye movements in Chinese reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 895–913.
15.
LiX.ZangC.LiversedgeS. P.PollatsekA. (2015). The role of words in Chinese reading. In PollatsekA.TreimanR. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of reading (pp. 232–244). New York: Oxford University Press.
16.
LiuY.ReichleE. D.LiX. (2015). Parafoveal processing affects outgoing saccade length during the reading of Chinese. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(4), 1229–1236.
17.
LiuY.ReichleE. D.LiX. (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.
18.
LiversedgeS. P.ZangC.ZhangM.BaiX.YanG.DriegheD. (2014). The effect of visual complexity and word frequency on eye movements during Chinese reading. Visual Cognition, 22, 441–457.
19.
LvF. (2003). Comparative illustration of common Chinese words and expressions (pp. 142–144). Beijing: Beijing Language and Culture University Press.
20.
RaynerK. (1975). The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 65–81.
21.
RaynerK. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422.
22.
RaynerK. (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.
23.
RaynerK.LiX.JuhaszB. J.YanG. (2005). The effect of word predictability on the eye movements of Chinese readers. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 1089–1093.
24.
R Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from URL http://www.R-project.org/
25.
ReichleE. D. (2011). Serial-attention models of reading. In LiversedgeS. P.GilchristI. D.EverlingS., (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of eye movements (pp. 767–786). New York: Oxford University Press.
26.
ReichleE. D.DriegheD. (2013). Using E-Z reader to examine word skipping during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(4), 1311–1320.
27.
ReichleE. D.RaynerK.PollatsekA. (2003). The E-Z reader model of eye-movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 26, 445–476.
28.
ReichleE. D.WarrenT.McConnellK. (2009). Using E-Z reader to model the effects of higher level language processing on eye movements during reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(1), 1–21.
29.
SchadD. J.EngbertR. (2012). The zoom lens of attention: Simulating shuffled versus normal text reading using the SWIFT model. Visual Cognition, 20(4–5), 391–421.
30.
YanM.RichterE. M.ShuH.KlieglR. (2009). Readers of Chinese extract semantic information from parafoveal words. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 561–566.
31.
YangJ.WangS.XuY.RaynerK. (2009). Do Chinese readers obtain preview benefit from word n+2? Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1192–1204.
32.
YinB. (1990). Chinese romanization: Pronunciation and orthography. Beijing: Sinolingua.
33.
ZangC.LiversedgeS. P.BaiX.YanG. (2011). Eye movements during Chinese reading. In LiversedgeS. P.GilchristI.EverlingS. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of eye movements (pp. 961–978). New York: Oxford University Press.
34.
ZhouW.KlieglR.YanM. (2013). A validation of parafoveal semantic information extraction in reading Chinese. Journal of Research in Reading, 36(S1), S51–S63.
