Cargando…

Lexical Processing Strongly Affects Reading Times But Not Skipping During Natural Reading

In a typical text, readers look much longer at some words than at others, even skipping many altogether. Historically, researchers explained this variation via low-level visual or oculomotor factors, but today it is primarily explained via factors determining a word’s lexical processing ease, such a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Heilbron, Micha, van Haren, Jorie, Hagoort, Peter, de Lange, Floris P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MIT Press 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10575561/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37840763
http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00099
_version_ 1785120949763309568
author Heilbron, Micha
van Haren, Jorie
Hagoort, Peter
de Lange, Floris P.
author_facet Heilbron, Micha
van Haren, Jorie
Hagoort, Peter
de Lange, Floris P.
author_sort Heilbron, Micha
collection PubMed
description In a typical text, readers look much longer at some words than at others, even skipping many altogether. Historically, researchers explained this variation via low-level visual or oculomotor factors, but today it is primarily explained via factors determining a word’s lexical processing ease, such as how well word identity can be predicted from context or discerned from parafoveal preview. While the existence of these effects is well established in controlled experiments, the relative importance of prediction, preview and low-level factors in natural reading remains unclear. Here, we address this question in three large naturalistic reading corpora (n = 104, 1.5 million words), using deep neural networks and Bayesian ideal observers to model linguistic prediction and parafoveal preview from moment to moment in natural reading. Strikingly, neither prediction nor preview was important for explaining word skipping—the vast majority of explained variation was explained by a simple oculomotor model, using just fixation position and word length. For reading times, by contrast, we found strong but independent contributions of prediction and preview, with effect sizes matching those from controlled experiments. Together, these results challenge dominant models of eye movements in reading, and instead support alternative models that describe skipping (but not reading times) as largely autonomous from word identification, and mostly determined by low-level oculomotor information.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10575561
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MIT Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105755612023-10-14 Lexical Processing Strongly Affects Reading Times But Not Skipping During Natural Reading Heilbron, Micha van Haren, Jorie Hagoort, Peter de Lange, Floris P. Open Mind (Camb) Research Article In a typical text, readers look much longer at some words than at others, even skipping many altogether. Historically, researchers explained this variation via low-level visual or oculomotor factors, but today it is primarily explained via factors determining a word’s lexical processing ease, such as how well word identity can be predicted from context or discerned from parafoveal preview. While the existence of these effects is well established in controlled experiments, the relative importance of prediction, preview and low-level factors in natural reading remains unclear. Here, we address this question in three large naturalistic reading corpora (n = 104, 1.5 million words), using deep neural networks and Bayesian ideal observers to model linguistic prediction and parafoveal preview from moment to moment in natural reading. Strikingly, neither prediction nor preview was important for explaining word skipping—the vast majority of explained variation was explained by a simple oculomotor model, using just fixation position and word length. For reading times, by contrast, we found strong but independent contributions of prediction and preview, with effect sizes matching those from controlled experiments. Together, these results challenge dominant models of eye movements in reading, and instead support alternative models that describe skipping (but not reading times) as largely autonomous from word identification, and mostly determined by low-level oculomotor information. MIT Press 2023-10-01 /pmc/articles/PMC10575561/ /pubmed/37840763 http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00099 Text en © 2023 Massachusetts Institute of Technology https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For a full description of the license, please visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Research Article
Heilbron, Micha
van Haren, Jorie
Hagoort, Peter
de Lange, Floris P.
Lexical Processing Strongly Affects Reading Times But Not Skipping During Natural Reading
title Lexical Processing Strongly Affects Reading Times But Not Skipping During Natural Reading
title_full Lexical Processing Strongly Affects Reading Times But Not Skipping During Natural Reading
title_fullStr Lexical Processing Strongly Affects Reading Times But Not Skipping During Natural Reading
title_full_unstemmed Lexical Processing Strongly Affects Reading Times But Not Skipping During Natural Reading
title_short Lexical Processing Strongly Affects Reading Times But Not Skipping During Natural Reading
title_sort lexical processing strongly affects reading times but not skipping during natural reading
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10575561/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37840763
http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00099
work_keys_str_mv AT heilbronmicha lexicalprocessingstronglyaffectsreadingtimesbutnotskippingduringnaturalreading
AT vanharenjorie lexicalprocessingstronglyaffectsreadingtimesbutnotskippingduringnaturalreading
AT hagoortpeter lexicalprocessingstronglyaffectsreadingtimesbutnotskippingduringnaturalreading
AT delangeflorisp lexicalprocessingstronglyaffectsreadingtimesbutnotskippingduringnaturalreading