您当前的位置: > 详细浏览

预测性对快速读者和慢速读者词汇加工的影响

摘要:本研究借助眼动仪通过两个实验考察了熟练阅读中快速读者与慢速读者对语境预测性的利用是否有差异。实验1比较快速组与慢速组在中央凹加工高、低预测词的差异。实验2对比两组利用副中央凹预视(相同、相似假字、低预测词和不相似假字)加工高预测词的差异。实验1结果显示两组读者有相似的预测性效应:对高预测词的注视时间比低预测词更短。实验2结果显示两组的预视效应存在差异:慢速组在相同预视下对目标词的跳读率高于低预测预视,而快速组在两种预视下的跳读率差异不明显但高于慢速组;慢速组在低预测和不相似预视下注视目标词的时间分别长于相同预视,而快速组的这两种效应较小。结果表明,两组读者利用预测性的差异表现在副中央凹加工阶段,即慢速读者比快速读者利用相似预视激活预测性信息的效率更低,且在低预测或无效预视下对词汇的识别和语义整合更困难,这说明慢速读者在词汇加工中更依赖语境且对无关信息的抑制更弱。这些结果支持词汇质量假说。

英文摘要:According to the lexical quality hypothesis, high proficient (fast) readers have well-specified lexical representations which enable automatic word identification and less context decoding (Andrews, 2015; Perfetti, 2007), while low proficient (slow) readers rely on context for word identification during reading due to their imprecise lexical quality. In contrast, the predictive coding framework assumes that high proficient readers rely more on their reading experience to predict the upcoming context compared to low proficient readers (Hawelka et al., 2015). However, it is still unclear how skilled readers with different levels of reading proficiency rely on context information (e.g., predictability) for word processing during Chinese reading. In two experiments, the present study aimed to investigate individual differences in the use of predictability for word identification by using the eye-tracking technique. In Experiment 1, eye movements of fast and slow readers were recorded while they were reading sentences containing predictable or unpredictable target words, with the aim to investigate the differences in predictability effects between the two groups. Sixty pairs of predictable-unpredictable target words were selected, each of which was embedded into the same sentence frame. Fifteen fast and 15 slow readers, selected from a group of 66 participants based on their reading rates, participated in Experiment 1. In Experiment 2, parafoveal previews of the 60 predictable target words (identical word, visually similar pseudocharacter, unpredictable word or visually dissimilar pseudocharacter) were manipulated by using the boundary paradigm (Rayner, 1975) to explore how parafoveal preview influences processing of predictability information in the fast and slow readers. The eye movements of 20 fast and 20 slow readers, selected from a group of 80 participants on the basis of their reading rates, were recorded while they were reading sentences containing predictable target words with different previews in Experiment 2. The results showed that fast readers fixated shorter and less on the target words and were more likely to skip the target words than slow readers. In Experiment 1, although reliable predictability effects with shorter fixations for predictable than unpredictable words were found, it did not interact with reading groups. However, results in Experiment 2 showed robust parafoveal preview effects on the target word which interacted with reading groups. In particular, the two groups had the same first-pass fixation times (i.e., FFD, SFD, GD) at the target words under the identical previews, while slow readers made longer fixations than fast readers at the targets with unpredictable previews or unrelated previews. In addition, fast readers skipped target words at a similar probability under both the identical preview and unpredictable preview conditions, while slow readers were less likely to skip target words with unpredictable previews than identical previews. The current findings indicate that fast and slow readers rely on context to a similar degree during their foveal lexical processing whereas the two groups show different utilization of previews of the predictable word during their parafoveal processing. To be specific, compared to fast readers, slow readers are inefficient in activating the predictable word with a visually similar preview; moreover, slow readers are disturbed more by the unpredictable preview or the visually dissimilar preview for their lexical processing, which suggests that slow readers are less effective in suppressing unrelated or inappropriate information during reading. Such findings provide evidence for the lexical quality hypothesis (Perfetti, 2007) and are in support of the linguistic-pro?ciency hypothesis related to individual differences in the E-Z reader model (Reichle et al., 2013).

版本历史

[V1] 2022-06-27 18:21:11 chinaXiv:202206.00179V1 下载全文
点击下载全文
同行评议状态
待评议
许可声明
metrics指标
  • 点击量403
  • 下载量92
评论
分享
邀请专家评阅