How readers use multiple sources of information to determine where to move their eyes during reading is a central question in eye movement control. In Chinese reading, both preview and contextual information have been shown to modulate saccade target selection. However, it remains unclear how contextual constraint and parafoveal preview jointly influence saccade targeting. The present study examined the relationship between contextual constraint and parafoveal preview in saccade target selection during Chinese reading. Participants’ eye movements were recorded while they read sentences containing three-character target words embedded in either high- or low-constraint contexts. Using the boundary paradigm, we manipulated the preview validity of the target words: the preview was either identical to the target word (valid preview) or consisted of three pseudo-characters (invalid preview). The results showed a significant interaction between contextual constraint and preview validity on initial landing positions within the target word region and on saccade lengths entering the target word. Specifically, contextual constraint affected saccade targeting under valid preview conditions, whereas this effect was eliminated under invalid preview conditions. These findings indicate that saccade target selection during Chinese reading reflects a dynamically interactive process that integrates both preview (bottom-up) and contextual (top-down) information. The results provide empirical evidence that refines cognitive models of eye movement control in Chinese reading.
AndrewsS.VeldreA. (2019). What is the most plausible account of the role of parafoveal processing in reading?Language and Linguistics Compass, 13(7), e12344. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12344
2.
BalotaD. A.PollatsekA.RaynerK. (1985). The interaction of contextual constraints and parafoveal visual information in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 17(3), 364–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(85)90013-1
3.
BarrD. J.LevyR.ScheepersC.TilyH. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
EngbertR.NuthmannA.RichterE. M.KlieglR. (2005). SWIFT: A dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. Psychological Review, 112(4), 777–813. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.112.4.777
6.
HuangL.LiX. (2020). Early, but not overwhelming: The effect of prior context on segmenting overlapping ambiguous strings when reading Chinese. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(9), 1382–1395. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021820926012
7.
HuangL.StaubA.LiX. (2021). Prior context influences lexical competition when segmenting Chinese overlapping ambiguous strings. Journal of Memory and Language, 118, 104218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2021.104218
8.
InhoffA. W.RadachR.EiterB. M.JuhaszB. (2003). Distinct subsystems for the parafoveal processing of spatial and linguistic information during eye fixations in reading. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 56(5), 803–827. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980244000639
9.
JinW.LiuY.WangS. (2025). The influence of contextual constraint and word length on eye movement control during Chinese reading. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1652627. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1652627
10.
JuhaszB. J.WhiteS. J.LiversedgeS. P.RaynerK. (2008). Eye movements and the use of parafoveal word length information in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(6), 1560–1579. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012319
11.
KumleL.VõM. L.-H.DraschkowD. (2021). Estimating power in (generalized) linear mixed models: An open introduction and tutorial in R. Behavior Research Methods, 53(6), 2528–2543. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01546-0
12.
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
13.
LavigneF.VituF.d’YdewalleG. (2000). The influence of semantic context on initial eye landing sites in words. Acta Psychologica, 104, 191–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(00)00020-2
14.
LenthR.SingmannH.LoveJ.BuerknerP.HerveM. (2018). emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka leastsquares means (R Package Version 1.3.0). https://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=emmeans
15.
LiN.SunD.WangS. (2023). Semantic preview effect of relatedness and plausibility in reading Chinese: Evidence from high constraint sentences. Reading and Writing, 36(5), 1319–1338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10350-x
16.
LiN.WangS.MoL.KlieglR. (2018). Contextual constraint and preview time modulate the semantic preview effect: Evidence from Chinese sentence reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(1), 241–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2017.1310914
17.
LiX.LiuP.RaynerK. (2011). Eye movement guidance in Chinese reading: Is there a preferred viewing location?Vision Research, 51(10), 1146–1156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2011.03.004
18.
LiX.PollatsekA. (2020). An integrated model of word processing and eye-movement control during Chinese reading. Psychological Review, 127(6), 1139–1162. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000248
19.
LiuY.GuoS.YuL.ReichleE. D. (2018). Word predictability affects saccade length in Chinese reading: An evaluation of the dynamic-adjustment model. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(5), 1891-1899. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1357-x
20.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000057
21.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000190
MaG.LiX.PollatsekA. (2015). There is no relationship between preferred viewing location and word segmentation in Chinese reading. Visual Cognition, 23(3), 399–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2014.1002554
24.
MaG.LiZ.XuF.LiX. (2019). The modulation of eye movement control by word length in reading Chinese. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(7), 1620–1631. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021818799994
25.
PlummerP.RaynerK. (2012). Effects of parafoveal word length and orthographic features on initial fixation landing positions in reading. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74(5), 950–963. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-012-0286-z
26.
R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
27.
RaynerK. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372
RaynerK. (1979). Eye guidance in reading: Fixation locations within words. Perception, 8(1), 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1068/p080021
30.
RaynerK. (2009). The 35th Sir Frederick Bartlett Lecture: 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
31.
RaynerK.BinderK. S.AshbyJ.PollatsekA. (2001). Eye movement control in reading: Word predictability has little influence on initial landing positions in words. Vision Research, 41(7), 943–954. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-6989(00)00310-2
32.
RaynerK.SlatteryT. J.DriegheD.LiversedgeS. P. (2011). Eye movements and word skipping during reading: Effects of word length and predictability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(2), 514–528. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020990
33.
ReichleE. D.PollatsekA.FisherD. L.RaynerK. (1998). Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. Psychological Review, 105, 125–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.105.1.125
34.
ReichleE. D.PollatsekA.RaynerK. (2012). Using E-Z Reader to simulate eye movements in nonreading tasks: A unified framework for understanding the eye-mind link. Psychological Review, 119, 155–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026473
SchotterE. R.LeeM.ReidermanM.RaynerK. (2015). The effect of contextual constraint on parafoveal processing in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 83, 118–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.04.005
37.
StaubA.GoddardK. (2019). The role of preview validity in predictability and frequency effects on eye movements in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(1), 110–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000561
38.
VainioS.HyönäJ.PajunenA. (2009). Lexical predictability exerts robust effects on fixation duration, but not on initial landing position during reading. Experimental Psychology, 56, 66–74. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.56.1.66
39.
VasilevM. R.AngeleB. (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. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1147-x
40.
WeiW.LiX.PollatsekA. (2013). Word properties of a fixated region affect outgoing saccade length in Chinese reading. Vision Research, 80, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2012.11.015
41.
YanM.KlieglR.RichterE. M.NuthmannA.ShuH. (2010). Flexible saccade-target selection in Chinese reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(4), 705–725. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210903114858
42.
YanM.RichterE. M.ShuH.KlieglR. (2009). Readers of Chinese extract semantic information from parafoveal words. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(3), 561–566. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.3.561
43.
YangJ.WangS.TongX.RaynerK. (2012). Semantic and plausibility effects on preview benefit during eye fixations in Chinese reading. Reading and Writing, 25(5), 1031–1052. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9281-8
