Looking for immediate and downstream evidence of lexical prediction in eye movements during reading
- Publisher:
- SAGE Publications
- Publication Type:
- Journal Article
- Citation:
- Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2024, 77, (10), pp. 2040-2064
- Issue Date:
- 2024-01-27
Open Access
Copyright Clearance Process
- Recently Added
- In Progress
- Open Access
This item is open access.
Full metadata record
Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Wong, R | |
dc.contributor.author |
Veldre, A https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0364-8502 |
|
dc.contributor.author | Andrews, S | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-12-02T00:32:49Z | |
dc.date.available | 2024-12-02T00:32:49Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2024-01-27 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2024, 77, (10), pp. 2040-2064 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1747-0218 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1747-0226 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10453/182154 | |
dc.description.abstract | Previous investigations of whether readers make predictions about the full identity of upcoming words have focused on the extent to which there are processing consequences when readers encounter linguistic input that is incompatible with their expectations. To date, eye-movement studies have revealed inconsistent evidence of the processing costs that would be expected to accompany lexical prediction. This study investigated whether readers' lexical predictions were observable during or downstream from their initial point of activation. Three experiments assessed readers' eye movements to predictable and unpredictable words, and then to subsequent downstream words, which probed the lingering activation of previously expected words. The results showed novel evidence of processing costs for unexpected input but only when supported by a plausible linguistic environment, suggesting that readers could strategically modulate their predictive processing. However, there was limited evidence that their lexical predictions affected downstream processing. The implications of these findings for understanding the role of prediction in language processing are discussed. | |
dc.format | Print-Electronic | |
dc.language | eng | |
dc.publisher | SAGE Publications | |
dc.relation.ispartof | Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology | |
dc.relation.isbasedon | 10.1177/17470218231223858 | |
dc.rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess | |
dc.subject | 1701 Psychology, 1702 Cognitive Sciences | |
dc.subject.classification | Experimental Psychology | |
dc.subject.classification | 5202 Biological psychology | |
dc.subject.classification | 5204 Cognitive and computational psychology | |
dc.subject.mesh | Humans | |
dc.subject.mesh | Reading | |
dc.subject.mesh | Eye Movements | |
dc.subject.mesh | Female | |
dc.subject.mesh | Male | |
dc.subject.mesh | Young Adult | |
dc.subject.mesh | Adult | |
dc.subject.mesh | Psycholinguistics | |
dc.subject.mesh | Pattern Recognition, Visual | |
dc.subject.mesh | Eye-Tracking Technology | |
dc.subject.mesh | Semantics | |
dc.subject.mesh | Vocabulary | |
dc.subject.mesh | Anticipation, Psychological | |
dc.subject.mesh | Humans | |
dc.subject.mesh | Eye Movements | |
dc.subject.mesh | Pattern Recognition, Visual | |
dc.subject.mesh | Psycholinguistics | |
dc.subject.mesh | Reading | |
dc.subject.mesh | Semantics | |
dc.subject.mesh | Vocabulary | |
dc.subject.mesh | Adult | |
dc.subject.mesh | Female | |
dc.subject.mesh | Male | |
dc.subject.mesh | Young Adult | |
dc.subject.mesh | Anticipation, Psychological | |
dc.subject.mesh | Eye-Tracking Technology | |
dc.subject.mesh | Humans | |
dc.subject.mesh | Reading | |
dc.subject.mesh | Eye Movements | |
dc.subject.mesh | Female | |
dc.subject.mesh | Male | |
dc.subject.mesh | Young Adult | |
dc.subject.mesh | Adult | |
dc.subject.mesh | Psycholinguistics | |
dc.subject.mesh | Pattern Recognition, Visual | |
dc.subject.mesh | Eye-Tracking Technology | |
dc.subject.mesh | Semantics | |
dc.subject.mesh | Vocabulary | |
dc.subject.mesh | Anticipation, Psychological | |
dc.title | Looking for immediate and downstream evidence of lexical prediction in eye movements during reading | |
dc.type | Journal Article | |
utslib.citation.volume | 77 | |
utslib.location.activity | England | |
utslib.for | 1701 Psychology | |
utslib.for | 1702 Cognitive Sciences | |
pubs.organisational-group | University of Technology Sydney | |
pubs.organisational-group | University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health | |
pubs.organisational-group | University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health/Graduate School of Health | |
pubs.organisational-group | University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health/Graduate School of Health/GSH.Clinical Psychology | |
utslib.copyright.status | open_access | * |
pubs.consider-herdc | false | |
dc.rights.license | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ | |
dc.date.updated | 2024-12-02T00:32:46Z | |
pubs.issue | 10 | |
pubs.publication-status | Published online | |
pubs.volume | 77 | |
utslib.citation.issue | 10 |
Abstract:
Previous investigations of whether readers make predictions about the full identity of upcoming words have focused on the extent to which there are processing consequences when readers encounter linguistic input that is incompatible with their expectations. To date, eye-movement studies have revealed inconsistent evidence of the processing costs that would be expected to accompany lexical prediction. This study investigated whether readers' lexical predictions were observable during or downstream from their initial point of activation. Three experiments assessed readers' eye movements to predictable and unpredictable words, and then to subsequent downstream words, which probed the lingering activation of previously expected words. The results showed novel evidence of processing costs for unexpected input but only when supported by a plausible linguistic environment, suggesting that readers could strategically modulate their predictive processing. However, there was limited evidence that their lexical predictions affected downstream processing. The implications of these findings for understanding the role of prediction in language processing are discussed.
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Download statistics for the last 12 months
Not enough data to produce graph