以往研究显示,中文朗读与默读中的眼动模式存在差异。与朗读相比,从副中央凹获得的预视信息更能促进默读的进行,但两种阅读方式下副中央凹预视对中央凹的信息加工的影响是否相同,目前还不清楚。为此,本实验采用正常的句子阅读范式,操纵了副中央凹预视词的词频(高、低)与笔画数(少、多),对比了40名大学生被试在朗读与默读下对中央凹词注视的差异。结果显示,在单次注视时间上,发现了词频、笔画数与阅读方式的三阶交互作用,即在默读任务中出现了正向的词频与笔画数交互的副中央凹-中央凹效应,表现为在默读中当副中央凹词为高频、少笔画时对中央凹词的注视时间短于高频、多笔画条件,而在朗读任务中则没有发现这种效应;在凝视时间上,出现了正向的词频的副中央凹-中央凹效应,且不受阅读方式的影响,表现为副中央凹词为高频时,对中央凹词的加工时间更短。实验结果支持平行加工模型的观点。
Previous studies showed that eye movements characteristics during Chinese silent reading was different from that in Chinese oral reading. Chinese readers tended to placing more reliance on parafoveal previews in silent reading than in oral reading; however, whether it is the same or not about how parafoveal previews affecting foveal processing during the two reading modes is unclear. Thus, the present experiment compared the difference of foveal processing between silent and oral reading by recording eye movements of 40 undergraduates while reading normal sentence of which the parafoveal words varied from frequency (high, low) and stroke (less, more). The results showed that on single fixation duration, frequency and strokes of parafoveal words had different effects on foveal word processing in silent reading from that in oral reading, showing an interacted and positive parafoveal-foveal effect of word frequency and word strokes in silent reading rather than oral reading. That is, single fixation duration on foveal words was shorter when parafoveal words were high frequency and had less strokes than words of high frequency and more strokes. Meanwhile, on gaze duration, there was word frequency parafoveal-fovel effect both in silent and oral reading, with shorter gaze duration on foveal words when parafoveal words were high frequency than when those were low frequency. The results were in consistent with the issues of the parallel graded attention models of reading.
Ashby, J., J. Yang, K. H. C. Evans & K. Rayner. 2012. Eye movements and the perceptual span in silent and oral reading [J]. Attention Perception & Psychophysics 74(4):634-640.
Cai, Q. & M. Brysbaert. 2010. SUBTLEX–CH: Chinese word and character frequencies based on film subtitle [J]. PLoS ONE 5(6): e10729.
Drieghe, D., M. Brysbaert & T. Desmet. 2005. Parafoveal–on–foveal effects on eye movements in reading: Does an extra space make a difference? [J].Vision Research 45(13): 1693-1706.
Engbert, R. & R. Kliegl. 2011. Parallel graded attention models of reading [A]. In S. P. Liversedge, I. D. Gilchrist & S. Everling (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Eye Movements [C].Oxford: Oxford University Press.787-800.
Henderson, J. M. & F. Ferreira. 1990. Effects of foveal processing dificulty on the perceptual span in reading: Implications for attention and eye movement control [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 16(3): 417-429.
Hyönä, J. & R. Bertram. 2004. Do frequency characteristics of nonfixated words influence the processing of fixated words during reading?[J]. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 16(1-2): 104-127.
Inhoff, A. W. & R. Radach. 2014. Parafoveal preview benefits during silent and oral reading: Testing the parafoveal information extraction hypothesis [J]. Visual Cognition 22(3): 354-376.
Kennedy, A. & J. Pynte. 2005. Parafoveal–on–foveal effects in normal reading [J]. Vision Research 45(2): 153-68.
Kennedy, A., J. Pynte & S.Ducrot. 2002. Parafoveal-on-foveal interactions in word recognition [J]. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 55(4): 1307-1337.
Liversedge, S. P., C. Zang, M. Zhang, X. Bai, G. Yan & D. Drieghe. 2014. The effect of visual complexity and word frequency on eye movements during Chinese reading [J]. Visual Cognition 22(3-4): 441-457.
Rayner, K. 2009. Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search [J]. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 62(8): 1457-1506.
Rayner, K., B. J. Juhasz & S. J. Brown. 2007. Do readers obtain preview benefit from word n + 2? A test of serial attention shift versus distributed lexical processing models of eye movement control in reading [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 33(1): 230-245.
Rayner, K., A. Pollatsek, J. Ashby & C. Clifton. 2012. The Psychology of Reading [M]. New York: Psychology Press.
Reichle, E. D. 2011. Serial–attention models of reading [A]. In S. P. Liversedge, I. D. Gilchrist & S. Everling (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Eye Movements [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.767-786.
White, S. J. 2008. Eye movement control during reading: Effects of word frequency and orthographic familiarity [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 34(1): 205-223.
White, S. J. & S. P. Liversedge. 2006. Foveal processing difficulty does not modulate non–foveal orthographic influences on fixation positions [J]. Vision Research 46(3): 426-437.
Yang, J., S. Wang, X. Tong & K. Rayner. 2012. Semantic and plausibility effects on preview benefit during eye fixations in Chinese reading [J]. Reading and Writing 25(5):1031-1052.
白学军. 2016. 实验心理学[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社.
白学军、胡笑羽、闫国利. 2009a.非注视词特性对注视词加工作用的眼动研究[J].心理科学(2):308-311.
白学军、胡笑羽、闫国利. 2009b.中文阅读的副中央凹–中央凹效应:词n的语义透明度对词n–1加工的影响[J]. 心理学报(5):377-386.
白学军、刘娟、臧传丽、张慢慢、郭晓峰、闫国利. 2011.中文阅读过程中的副中央凹预视效应[J].心理科学进展(12):1721-1729.
白学军、田丽娟、张涛、梁菲菲、闫国利.2009.朗读条件下词切分方式对说明文阅读影响的眼动研究[J].天津工程师范学院学报(3):39-44.
毕鸿燕、翁旭初.2006.出声阅读中语音通达的双通路模型[J]. 生物物理学报(5):325-330.
崔磊、王穗苹、闫国利、白学军. 2010. 中文阅读中副中央凹与中央凹相互影响的眼动实验[J]. 心理学报(5):547-558.
高敏、徐迩嘉、任桂琴、隋雪. 2016. 出声阅读和默读之间的差异[J].心理科学进展(1):21-30.
胡笑羽、白学军、闫国利. 2010. 副中央凹–中央凹效应的研究现状及展望[J].心理科学进展(3): 412-419.
刘丽萍、刘海健、胡笑羽. 2006. SWIFT–II: 阅读中眼跳发生的动力学模型[J].心理与行为研究(3):230-235.
王穗苹、佟秀红、杨锦绵、冷英. 2009. 中文句子阅读中语义信息对眼动预视效应的影响[J].心理学报(3):220-232.
闫国利、巫金根、胡晏雯、白学军. 2010. 当前阅读的眼动研究范式述评[J].心理科学进展 18(12):1966-1976.
闫国利、熊建萍、臧传丽、余莉莉、崔磊、白学军. 2013. 阅读研究中的主要眼动指标评述[J]. 心理科学进展(4):589-605.
臧传丽、张慢慢、郭晓峰、刘娟、闫国利、白学军. 2012. 中文词汇加工的若干效应: 基于眼动研究的证据[J].心理科学进展(9):1-11.
臧传丽、张慢慢、岳音其、白学军、闫国利. 2013. 副中央凹信息量对中文朗读和默读的调节作用[J].心理与行为研究(4):444-450.
