Reading requires the assembly of cognitive processes across a wide spectrum from low-level visual perception to high-level discourse comprehension. One approach of unravelling the dynamics associated with these processes is to determine how eye movements are influenced by the characteristics of the text, in particular which features of the words within the perceptual span maximise the information intake due to foveal, spillover, parafoveal, and predictive processing. One way to test the generalisability of current proposals of such distributed processing is to examine them across different languages. For Turkish, an agglutinative language with a shallow orthography–phonology mapping, we replicate the well-known canonical main effects of frequency and predictability of the fixated word as well as effects of incoming saccade amplitude and fixation location within the word on single-fixation durations with data from 35 adults reading 120 nine-word sentences. Evidence for previously reported effects of the characteristics of neighbouring words and interactions was mixed. There was no evidence for the expected Turkish-specific morphological effect of the number of inflectional suffixes on single-fixation durations. To control for word-selection bias associated with single-fixation durations, we also tested effects on word skipping, single-fixation, and multiple-fixation cases with a base-line category logit model, assuming an increase of difficulty for an increase in the number of fixations. With this model, significant effects of word characteristics and number of inflectional suffixes of foveal word on probabilities of the number of fixations were observed, while the effects of the characteristics of neighbouring words and interactions were mixed.
AngeleB.SchotterE. R.SlatteryT. J.TenenbaumT. L.BicknellK.RaynerK. (2015). Do successor effects in reading reflect lexical parafoveal processing? Evidence from corpus-based and experimental eye movement data. Journal of Memory and Language, 79, 76–96.
2.
BıçakçıB. (2012). Baharda yine geliriz [We come again during spring]. İletişim.
3.
BaayenH.BatesD.KlieglR.VasishthS. (2015). RePsychLing: Data sets from psychology and linguistics experiments (R package version 0.0.4). R Core Team.
4.
BaayenR. H. (2013). languageR: Data sets and functions with “Analyzing Linguistic Data: A practical introduction to statistics” (R package version 1.5.0). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=languageR
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
7.
Beken FikriF. (2015). Eye movement control in Turkish reading: A corpus-analytic approach [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Middle East Technical University.
8.
BertramR.HyönäJ. (2013). The role of hyphens at the constituent boundary in compound word identification: Facilitative for long, detrimental for short compound words. Experimental Psychology, 60(3), 157–163. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000183
BrothersT.HoverstenL. J.TraxlerM. J. (2017). Looking back on reading ahead: No evidence for lexical parafoveal-on-foveal effects. Journal of Memory and Language, 96, 9–22.
11.
BrysbaertM.DiependaeleK. (2013). Dealing with zero word frequencies: A review of the existing rules of thumb and a suggestion for an evidence-based choice. Behavior Research Methods, 45(2), 422–430. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0270-5
12.
CuiL.DriegheD.BaiX.YanG.LiversedgeS. P. (2014). Parafoveal preview benefit in unspaced and spaced Chinese reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(11), 2172–2188.
13.
CutterM. G.DriegheD.LiversedgeS. P. (2015). How is information integrated across fixations in reading?. In PollatsekA.TreimanR. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of reading (pp. 245–260). Oxford University Press.
14.
DurrantP. (2013). Formulaicity in an agglutinating language: The case of Turkish. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 9(1), 1–38.
15.
EngbertR.LongtinA.KlieglR. (2002). A dynamical model of saccade generation in reading based on spatially distributed lexical processing. Vision Research, 42(5), 621–636.
16.
FalkauskasK.KupermanV. (2015). When experience meets language statistics: Individual variability in processing English compound words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(6), 1607–1627. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000132
17.
FieldA. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). SAGE.
18.
GökselA.KerslakeC. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge.
19.
HankamerJ. (1989). Morphological parsing and the lexicon. In Marslen-WilsonW. (Ed.), Lexical representation and process (pp. 392–408). MIT Press.
20.
HendersonJ. M.FerreiraF. (1990). Effects of foveal processing difficulty on the perceptual span in reading: Implications for attention and eye movement control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 417–429.
HohensteinS.MatuschekH.KlieglR. (2017). Linked linear mixed models: A joint analysis of fixation locations and fixation durations in natural reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(3), 637–651. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1138-y
23.
HyönäJ.YanM.VainioS. (2018). Morphological structure influences the initial landing position in words during reading Finnish. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(1), 122–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1267233
24.
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). Elsevier.
25.
JordanT. R.AlmabrukA. A.GadallaE. A.McGowanV. A.WhiteS. J.AbedipourL.PatersonK. B. (2014). Reading direction and the central perceptual span: Evidence from Arabic and English. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(2), 505–511. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0510-4
26.
JuhaszB. J. (2007). The influence of semantic transparency on eye movements during English compound word recognition. In van GompelR. P. G.FischerM. H.MurrayW. S.HillR. L. (Eds.), Eye movements: A window on mind and brain (pp. 373–389). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044980-7/50018-5
27.
KennedyA.PynteJ. (2005). Parafoveal-on-foveal effects in normal reading. Vision Research, 45(2), 153–168.
28.
KlieglR. (2007). Toward a perceptual-span theory of distributed processing in reading: A reply to Rayner, Pollatsek, Drieghe, Slattery, and Reichle (2007). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(3), 530–537. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.3.530
29.
KlieglR.GrabnerE.RolfsM.EngbertR. (2004). Length, frequency, and predictability effects of words on eye movements in reading. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16(1–2), 262–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440340000213
30.
KlieglR.NuthmannA.EngbertR. (2006). Tracking the mind during reading: The influence of past, present, and future words on fixation durations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 135(1), 12–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.12
31.
KornfiltJ. (2013). Turkish. Routledge.
32.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
LewisG. L. (2000). Turkish grammar (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
35.
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(2), 895–913. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033580
36.
LiX.RaynerK.CaveK. R. (2009). On the segmentation of Chinese words during reading. Cognitive Psychology, 58(4), 525–552.
37.
LiversedgeS. P.FindlayJ. M. (2000). Saccadic eye movements and cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(1), 6–14.
38.
LiversedgeS. P.PatersonK. B.PickeringM. J. (1998). Eye movements and measures of reading time. In UnderwoodJ. (Ed.), Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 55–75). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-043361-5.X5000-7.
39.
LouY.CaiH.LiuX.LiX. (2019). Effects of self-enhancement on eye movements during reading. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, e343.
40.
MatuschekH.KlieglR.VasishthS.BaayenH.BatesD. (2017). Balancing Type I error and power in linear mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.001
41.
NuthmannA.EngbertR.KlieglR. (2005). Mislocated fixations during reading and the inverted optimal viewing position effect. Vision Research, 45, 2201–2217.
PatersonK. B.McGowanV. A.JordanT. R. (2013). Filtered text reveals adult age differences in reading: Evidence from eye movements. Psychology and Aging, 28(2), 352–364.
44.
RadachR.KennedyA. (2013). Eye movements in reading: Some theoretical context. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(3), 429–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.750676
45.
RadachR.ReillyR.InhoffA. (2007). Models of oculomotor control in reading: Toward a theoretical foundation of current debates. In van GompelR. P. G.FischerM. H.MurrayW. S.HillR. L. (Eds.), Eye movements (pp. 237–269). Elsevier.
46.
RaynerK. (1975). The perceptual span and peripheral cues during reading. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 65–81.
47.
RaynerK. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422.
48.
RaynerK. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1457–1506. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902816461
49.
RaynerK.PollatsekA.AshbyJ.CliftonC. (2012). Psychology of reading (2nd ed.). Taylor & Francis.
50.
RaynerK.PollatsekA.DriegheD.SlatteryT. J.ReichleE. D. (2007). Tracking the mind during reading via eye movements: Comments on Kliegl, Nuthmann, and Engbert (2006). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(3), 520–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.3.520
51.
R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
52.
ReichleE. D.RaynerK.PollatsekA. (2003). The EZ reader model of eye-movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26(4), 445–476.
53.
SakH.GüngörT.SaraçlarM. (2008). Turkish language resources: Morphological parser, morphological disambiguator and web corpus. In N. BR. A (Ed.), Advances in natural language processing (GoTAL 2008). Lecture notes in computer science. 5221 (pp. 417–427). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85287-2_40
SayB.ZeyrekD.OflazerK.ÖzgeU. (2004). Development of a corpus and a treebank for present-day written Turkish (Proceedings of the eleventh international conference of Turkish linguistics, August, 2002). In İmerK.DoğanG. (Eds.), Current research in Turkish linguistics (pp. 183–192). Eastern Mediterranean University Press.
56.
VituF.McConkieG. W.KerrP.O’ReganJ. K. (2001). Fixation location effects on fixation durations during reading: An inverted optimal viewing position effect. Vision Research, 41, 3513–3533.
YanM.ZhouW.ShuH.KlieglR. (2012). Lexical and sublexical semantic preview benefits in Chinese reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(4), 1069–1075.
59.
YanM.ZhouW.ShuH.YusupuR.MiaoD.KrügelA.KlieglR. (2014). Eye movements guided by morphological structure: Evidence from the Uighur language. Cognition, 132, 181–215.
60.
YeeT. W. (2015). Vector generalized linear and additive models: With an implementation in R. Springer.
61.
YeeT. W.WildC. J. (1996). Vector generalized additive models. Journal of Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 58(3), 481–493.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
