94 47 4 381-398 Chinese Journal of Psychology 2005, Vol. 47, No. 4, 381-398 04038 2004 10 2 2005 1 31 2005 5 10 320 E-mail: hwawei@cc.ncu.edu.tw word cognition Adams, 1990; Perfetti, 1985 Morris & Williams, 2003 processing model Reichle, Pollatsek, Fisher, & Rayner, 1998 Rayner & Juhasz, 2004 Ko & Tzeng, 2000 word boundary 1998 Inhoff, Liu, & Tang, 1999 Yang & McConkie, 1999 NSC92-2511-S008-001
382 1989 1981 1981 1989 1998 1974 2002 2004 Kaakinen, Hyona,& Keenan, 2003 1) 2) Hyona, Lorch, & Kaakinen, 2002 e.g., Hyona & Olson, 1995; McConkie, Kerr, Reddix, & Zola, 1989; Rayner & Duffy, 1986; Schmauder, Morris, & Poynor, 2000 content word function word Carpenter & Just, 1983
383 16 2000 1001 1025 25 41 25 24 24 8 1 Dell OptiPlex Gx260 EyeLink II SAMSUNG SyncMaster 191N 250HZ 250 0.2 velocity 30 deg/sec acceleration 8000 deg/sec 2 CPM characters per minute FD fixation duration FD FFD forward fixation duration BFD backward fixation duration FFD FFD FSL forward saccade length pixel 6 1. CPM 2.5 2. FFD first reading 3. 4. FFD 100ms 1000ms 5. 17 6. FFD FSL 535.83 FFD 210 2.9 2000 2000 535.83 (200.44) 520.94 210 (23.00) 226 (34.00) 2.9 (.71) 2.9 (0.83)
384 2000 10 2000 1000 400 420 25 8 9 24 24 48 8 1 Y X Y 400 200 Kaakinen et al., 2003 200 200 200 200 200 24 24 48 8 180 90
385 26 11 200 1999 16 851 916 11 2004 1998 1) 2) 1998 t 759 785 t (1542) = 1.10, SE = 1.48, p =.27 60 CPM FD FD FFDBFD BFD re-fixation FD non-refixation FD Rayner, 1998 12 12 1) 2)
386 CPM 485.09 SD = 54.32 CPM 622.28 SD = 92.63 t(14) = 3.61, SE = 37.96, p <.01 MFD FFD t (14) = 3.63; 3.41, SE = 2.96; 4.27, p <.01 t (14) = 1.22; -.02; 1.12, SE = 4.64; 4.99; 4.84, p >.01 p <.05 p <.01 M SD M SD N 224.52 7.42 213.75 3.88 14 230.74 7.81 216.19 9.22 14 225.71 10.62 220.03 7.72 14 230.02 7.46 220.11 11.98 14 222.50 10.76 217.16 8.46 14 M SD M SD t (14) SE 91.66 9.60 71.23 13.61 3.47** 5.89 39.14 3.59 35.45 3.35 2.12* 1.74 52.52 8.53 35.78 13.36 2.99** 5.60 19.19 4.69 11.16 6.52 2.83** 2.84 35.33 3.96 25.92 7.13 3.27** 2.88 0.56 % 0.04 0.49 % 0.07 2.46** 0.03 *p <.05, **p <.01.
387 first gaze Rayner, Warren, Juhasz, & Livesedge, 2004; Starr, & Inhoff, 2004 136 77 return gaze 44 5 6 7 8 9 -.10 -.11 p.0001 -.01 -.002 p.05 / 11 function word content word 1992 Rayner, 1998; Williams & Morris, 2004 52% 67% Just Carpenter 1980 33% 50 1/44 2/ 3/ 4/ 5/ 9/ 6/ 7/ 8/ 136/114 77 156/ 136/ 128 118 316/ 289 233
388 60% 2004 2 = 900.49; 35.32, df = 11, p.001 (%) (%) % of Total (%) (%) % of Total 51 0.91 40.80 0.47 74 1.42 59.20 0.68 523 9.29 53.15 4.83 461 8.85 46.85 4.25 44 0.78 68.75 0.41 20 0.38 31.25 0.18 246 4.37 59.42 2.27 168 3.23 40.58 1.55 190 3.38 51.21 1.75 181 3.47 48.79 1.67 1250 22.21 39.25 11.53 1935 37.15 60.75 17.86 262 4.66 54.24 2.42 221 4.24 45.76 2.04 127 2.26 64.14 1.17 71 1.36 35.86 0.66 516 9.17 61.72 4.76 320 6.14 38.28 2.95 1045 18.57 42.99 9.64 1386 26.61 57.01 12.79 95 1.69 53.98 0.88 81 1.56 46.02 0.75 1279 22.73 81.46 11.80 291 5.59 18.54 2.69 Total 5628 100.00 51.93 51.93 5209 100.00 48.07 48.07 (%) (%) % of Total (%) (%) % of Total 16 0.21 80.00 0.14 4 0.11 20.00 0.04 484 6.38 62.78 4.27 287 7.64 37.22 2.53 170 2.24 71.43 1.50 68 1.81 28.57 0.60 26 0.34 61.90 0.23 16 0.43 38.10 0.14 396 5.2 66.90 3.5 196 5.22 33.11 1.73 2561 33.78 66.48 22.59 1290 34.35 33.50 11.38 230 3.03 63.21 2.03 134 3.57 36.81 1.18 45 0.59 52.32 0.40 41 1.09 47.67 0.36 428 5.64 64.13 3.77 240 6.39 35.93 2.12 1921 25.34 67.63 16.94 919 24.47 32.36 8.11 339 4.47 66.63 2.99 170 4.53 33.40 1.50 966 12.74 71.16 8.52 391 10.41 28.81 3.45 Total 7582 100.00 66.68 66.87 3756 100.00 33.13 33.13
389 p.05 p.05 p <.05 p <.05 p <.05 2 = 844.38, df = 1, p <.001 2 = 1.21, df = 1, p >.05 F (11,923) = 4.92, MSE = 5.12, p <.01 F (11,683) = 1.92, MSE = 10.46, p <.05 (%) (%) % of Total (%) (%) % of Total 1718 57.67 30.53 15.85 1261 42.33 24.21 11.64 2631 41.84 46.75 24.28 3657 58.16 70.21 33.75 1279 81.46 22.73 11.80 291 18.54 5.59 2.69 Total 5628 51.93 100.00 51.93 5209 48.07 100.00 48.07 (%) (%) % of Total (%) (%) % of Total 1634 65.4 21.6 14.4 86 34.6 23.0 7.6 4982 66.6 65.7 43.9 2500 33.4 66.6 22.0 966 71.2 12.7 8.5 391 28.8 10.4 3.4 Total 7582 66.87 100.00 66.87 3756 33.13 100.00 33.13
390 N N M SD M SD 239.05 62.19 11 247.58 78.18 11 211.58 45.34 89 214.01 71.05 65 185.03 29.52 5 352.67 177.59 3 237.68 85.97 36 189.07 63.72 25 228.86 52.09 34 230.91 93.18 25 229.02 51.73 282 234.30 78.98 234 234.28 54.83 43 212.31 79.67 34 238.27 109.22 16 218.70 59.17 10 210.27 44.15 69 216.57 80.10 47 222.06 54.58 216 224.25 74.27 172 213.96 35.79 17 218.48 79.23 14 192.10 56.71 117 219.49 79.50 55 N N M SD M SD 219.80 60.00 258 213.48 77.30 184 226.06 52.69 560 230.16 77.93 456 192.10 59.87 117 219.49 79.50 55 N N M SD M SD 269.31 114.99 211 231.78 116.31 130 267.60 101.35 632 245.59 129.67 362 264.34 92.60 102 260.29 140.54 63 N N M SD M SD 244.00 50.91 2 143.00 26.87 2 275.55 101.77 66 223.15 122.90 44 287.49 140.51 19 239.66 109.83 11 232.75 11.76 4 257.33 113.44 3 264.13 90.95 47 258.66 160.71 31 271.36 104.81 320 241.36 128.45 188 253.73 154.36 33 220.70 97.96 18 341.22 91.80 8 200.00 61.38 4 261.68 93.04 57 233.12 115.78 34 260.72 96.86 244 261.10 133.32 128 279.03 125.82 43 207.11 75.12 29 264.34 92.60 102 260.29 140.54 63 F (10, 695) = 1.29, MSE = 13.71, p <.05; F (10,544) = 1.76, MSE = 1.76, p <.05 F (11,933) = 0.78, MSE = 10.27; F (11,543) = 0.91, MSE = 16.14, p >.05 F (10,712) = 1.08, MSE = 15.90; F (10,403) =.74, MSE = 22.53, p >.05 F (2,932) = 17.99, MSE = 5.15; F (2, 692) = 3.15, MSE = 10.50, p <.05 F (1, 704) =.08, MSE = 2.55; F (1,541) = 3.15, MSE = 4.10, p >.05 F (2,942) =.08, MSE = 4.39; F (2,552) = 1.13, MSE = 16.12, p >.05 F (1, 720) = 2.20, MSE = 4.55, F (1,411) = 1.49, MSE = 7.10, p >.05
391 485.09 622. 28 FD FFD 52% 67% Carpenter & Just, 1983; Rayner & Duffy, 1986 Rayner, Juhasz, & Clifton, 2003 McConkie & Rayner, 1975
392 Grasser, Singer, & Trabasso, 1994; Zwaan, Magliano, & Grasser, 1995 F (7, 110) = 4.06, MSE =.47, p <.01 93% 52% Cook Mayer 1988 t =.239, p >.05 t.61; -.83;.91, p.05 Just Carpenter 1980 processing model 1998 1999 CKIP 1.0 1989 31 1-16 2004 1992 2002 2004 46 49-55 2000 1998 31 303-326 1981 23 137-153 1974 16 25-32 Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT
393 Press. Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (1983). What your eyes do while your mind is reading. In K. Rayner (Ed.), Eye movements in reading: perceptual and language processes (pp. 275-307). New York: Academic Press. Cook, L. K., & Mayer, R.E. (1988). Teaching readers about the structure of scientific text. Journal of Eduational Psychology, 80, 448-4546. Greasser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371-395. Hyona, J., M., Lorch, R. F., & Kaakinen, J. K. (2002). Individual differences in reading to summarize expository text: Evidence from eye fixation patterns. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 44-55. Hyona, J., & Olson, R. K. (1995). Eye fixation patterns among dyslexic and normal readers: Effects of word length and word frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21,1430-1440. Inhoff, A. W., Liu, W., & Tang, Z. (1999). Use of prelexical and lexical information during reading Chinese sentence reading: Evidence form eye movement studies. In J. Wang, A. W. Infoff, & et al. (Eds.), Reading Chinese script: A cognitive analysis (pp. 223-238). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329-354. Kaakinen, J. K., Hyona, J., & Keenan, J. M. (2003). How prior knowledge, WMC, and relevance of information affect eye fixations in expository text. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 447-457. Ko, H., & Tzeng, O. (2000). Learning to read Chinese: What role does the phonemic awareness play in a script of opaque speech. In W. Bright, B. Kachru, and C. W. Kim (Eds.), Studies in the linguistic sciences, 30, 119-132. McConkie, G. W., Kerr, P. W., Reddix, M. D., & Zola, D. (1989). Eye movement control during reading: II. Frequency of refixating a word. Perception & Psychophysics, 46, 245-253. McConkie, G. W. & Rayner, K. (1975). The span of the effective stimulus during a fixation in reading. Perception & Psychophysics, 17, 578-586. Morris, R. K., & Williams, R. S. (2003). Bridging the gap between old and new: Eye movement and vocabulary acquisition in reading. In J. Hyona, R. Radach, & H. Deubel (Eds.), The mind s eye: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research (pp. 235-252). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 Years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 24, 372-422. Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times: effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition, 14, 191-201. Rayner, K., Juhasz, B. J., & Clifton, C. J. (2003). Inhibition o f saccade return in reading. Vision Research, 43, 1027-1034. Rayner, K., & Juhasz, B. J. (2004). Eye movement in reading: Old questions and new directions. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 340-352. Rayner, K., Warren, T., Juhasz, B. J., & Livesedge, S. P. (2004). The effect of plausibility on eye movement in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 1290-1301. Reichle, E. D., Pollatsek, A., Fisher, D. L., & Rayner, K. (1998). Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. Psychological Review, 105, 125-157. Schmauder, A. R., Morris, R. K., & Poynor, D. V. (2000). Lexical processing and text integration of function and content words: Evidence from priming and eye fixations. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1098-1108. Starr, M. S. & Inhoff, A. W (2004). Attention allocation to the right and left of a fixated word: Use of orthographic information fromultiple word during reading. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 203-225.
394 Williams, R. S., & Morris, R. K. (2004). Eye movements, word familiarity, and vocabulary acquisition. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 312-339. Yang, H., & McConkie, G. W. (1999). Reading Chinese: Some basic eye movement characteristic. In J. Wang, A. W. Inhoff, & et al. (Eds.), Reading Chinese script: A cognitive anaylsis. (pp. 207-222). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Zwaan, R. A., Magliano, J. P., & Graesser, A. C. (1995). Dimensions of situation model construction in narrative comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 386-397.
395 187 Q 191 Q 10 179 Q 175 Q 183 Q 193 Q 193
396 Q 185 Q 178 Q 174 Q 179 Q 180 Q 172 Q 174 Q
184 Q 187 Q
398 Frequency Effect, Word Class and Eye Movements: Evidence from Text Reading Hwa-Wei Ko, Ming-Lei Chen, and Chia-Ning Liao National Central University, Graduate Institute of Learning and Instruction Eye movement pattern has shown how words are identified in reading. The purpose of the present study was twofold: (a) to examine the influence of word frequency and word class while online reading Chinese, (b) to explore the eye movement pattern during text reading process. The results have shown in expository text reading, there was word frequency effect and word class effect on fixation duration and fixation pattern. However, there were no frequency and word class effect in narrative text reading. The results are discussed in the light of a processing model. Keywords: word frequency, word class, eye movements, text reading, expository text, narrative text