The function/content word distinction and eye movements in reading.

IF 2.2 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY
Adrian Staub
{"title":"The function/content word distinction and eye movements in reading.","authors":"Adrian Staub","doi":"10.1037/xlm0001301","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A substantial quantity of research has explored whether readers' eye movements are sensitive to the distinction between function and content words. No clear answer has emerged, in part due to the difficulty of accounting for differences in length, frequency, and predictability between the words in the two classes. Based on evidence that readers differentially overlook function word errors, we hypothesized that function words may be more frequently skipped or may receive shorter fixations. We present two very large-scale eyetracking experiments using selected sentences from a corpus of natural text, with each sentence containing a target function or content word. The target words in the two classes were carefully matched on length, frequency, and predictability, with the latter variable operationalized in terms of next-word probability obtained from the large language model GPT-2. While the experiments replicated a range of expected effects, word class did not have any clear influence on target word skipping probability, and there was some evidence for a <i>content</i> word advantage in fixation duration measures. These results indicate that readers' tendency to overlook function word errors is not due to reduced time spent encoding these words. The results also broadly support the implicit assumption in prominent models of eye movement control in reading that a word's syntactic category does not play an important role in decisions about when and where to move the eyes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":50194,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition","volume":" ","pages":"967-984"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001301","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A substantial quantity of research has explored whether readers' eye movements are sensitive to the distinction between function and content words. No clear answer has emerged, in part due to the difficulty of accounting for differences in length, frequency, and predictability between the words in the two classes. Based on evidence that readers differentially overlook function word errors, we hypothesized that function words may be more frequently skipped or may receive shorter fixations. We present two very large-scale eyetracking experiments using selected sentences from a corpus of natural text, with each sentence containing a target function or content word. The target words in the two classes were carefully matched on length, frequency, and predictability, with the latter variable operationalized in terms of next-word probability obtained from the large language model GPT-2. While the experiments replicated a range of expected effects, word class did not have any clear influence on target word skipping probability, and there was some evidence for a content word advantage in fixation duration measures. These results indicate that readers' tendency to overlook function word errors is not due to reduced time spent encoding these words. The results also broadly support the implicit assumption in prominent models of eye movement control in reading that a word's syntactic category does not play an important role in decisions about when and where to move the eyes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

阅读中的功能/内容单词区分和眼动。
大量研究探讨了读者的眼球运动是否对功能词和内容词之间的区别敏感。目前还没有明确的答案,部分原因是很难解释这两个类别中单词在长度、频率和可预测性方面的差异。基于读者不同地忽略虚词错误的证据,我们假设虚词可能更频繁地被跳过,或者可能受到更短的注视。我们提出了两个非常大规模的眼动追踪实验,使用从自然文本语料库中选择的句子,每个句子都包含一个目标函数或内容词。两类中的目标词在长度、频率和可预测性方面进行了仔细匹配,后一个变量根据从大型语言模型GPT-2中获得的下一个单词概率进行了操作。虽然实验复制了一系列预期效果,但单词类别对目标单词跳过概率没有任何明显的影响,并且有一些证据表明内容单词在固定持续时间测量方面具有优势。这些结果表明,读者忽视虚词错误的倾向并不是因为编码这些单词所花费的时间减少。研究结果还广泛支持了阅读中眼动控制突出模型中的隐含假设,即单词的句法类别在决定何时何地移动眼睛方面并不起重要作用。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023 APA,保留所有权利)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
3.80%
发文量
163
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition publishes studies on perception, control of action, perceptual aspects of language processing, and related cognitive processes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信