The time course of contextual influences during lexical ambiguity resolution: Evidence from distributional analyses of fixation durations

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 40, Issue 7, 2012, Pages 1122-1131

  Sheridan, Heather ^a   Reingold, Eyal M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Distributional analysis; Eye movements; Lexical ambiguity; Reading

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; EYE FIXATION; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; METHODOLOGY; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; NORMAL DISTRIBUTION; OCULOGRAPHY; PHYSIOLOGY; READING; SEMANTICS; TIME;

ADULT; EYE MOVEMENT MEASUREMENTS; FIXATION, OCULAR; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; NORMAL DISTRIBUTION; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; READING; SEMANTICS; TIME FACTORS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84865015090     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: 15325946     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13421-012-0216-2     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Binder, K. S. (2003). Sentential and discourse topic effects on lexical ambiguity processing: An eye movement examination. Memory & Cognition, 31, 690-702.
2. Binder, K. S., & Rayner, K. (1999). Does contextual strength modulate the subordinate bias effect? A reply to Kellas and Vu. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 518-522. doi: 10. 3758/BF03210843.
3. Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 977-990. doi: 10. 3758/BRM. 41. 4. 977.
4. Cousineau, D., Brown, S., & Heathcote, A. (2004). Fitting distributions using maximum likelihood: Methods and packages. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 742-756.
5. Dopkins, S., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1992). Lexical ambiguity and eye fixations in reading: A test of competing models of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 461-476. Elsevier.
6. Duffy, S. A., Kambe, G., & Rayner, K. (2001). The effect of prior disambiguating context on the commehension of ambiguous words: Evidence from eye movements. In D. S. Gorfein (Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity (pp. 27-43). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
7. Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 429-446. doi: 10. 1016/0749-596X(88)90066-6.
8. Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1994). An introduction to the bootstrap. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall.
9. Ehrlich, S. F., & Rayner, K. (1981). Contextual effects on word perception and eye movements during reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 641-655.
10. Feng, G., Miller, K., Shu, H., & Zhang, H. (2001). Rowed to recovery: The use of phonological and orthographic information in reading Chinese and English. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1079-1100.
11. Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.
12. Folk, J. R., & Morris, R. K. (2003). Effects of syntactic category assignment on lexical ambiguity resolution in reading: An eye movement analysis. Memory & Cognition, 31, 87-99.
13. Forster, K. I. (1979). Levels of processing and the structure of the language processor. In W. E. Cooper & E. C. T. Walker (Eds.), Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic studies presented to Merrill Garrett (pp. 27-85). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
14. Glaholt, M. G., & Reingold, E. M. (in press). Direct control of fixation times in scene viewing: Evidence from analysis of the distribution of first fixation duration. Visual Cognition. doi: 10. 1080/13506285. 2012. 666295.
15. Heathcote, A., Brown, S., & Mewhort, D. J. K. (2002). Quantile maximum likelihood estimation of response time distributions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 394-401.
16. Hogaboam, T. W., & Perfetti, C. A. (1975). Lexical ambiguity and sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 14(3), 265-274.
17. Juhasz, B. J., & Rayner, K. (2006). The role of age of acquisition and word frequency in reading: Evidence from eye fixation durations. Visual Cognition, 13, 846-863.
18. Kambe, G., Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (2001). Global context effects on processing lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Memory & Cognition, 29, 363-372.
19. Kellas, G., & Vu, H. (1999). Strength of context does modulate the subordinate bias effect: A reply to Binder and Rayner. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 511-517.
20. Lucas, M. (1999). Context effects in lexical access: A meta-analysis. Memory & Cognition, 27, 385-398.
21. McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 1. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375-407.
22. Morton, J. (1969). Interaction of information in word recognition. Psychological Review, 76, 165-178.
23. Pacht, J. M., & Rayner, K. (1993). The processing of homophonic homographs during reading: evidence from eye movement studies. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 251-271.
24. Ratcliff, R. (1979). Group reaction time distributions and an analysis of distribution statistics. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 446-461.
25. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372-422.
26. Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements in reading: Models and data. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 2, 1-10.
27. Rayner, K., Binder, K. S., & Duffy, S. A. (1999). Contextual strength and the subordinate bias effect: Comment on Martin, Vu, Kellas, and Metcalf. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52A, 841-852. doi: 10. 1080/713755868.
28. Rayner, K., Cook, A. E., Juhasz, B. J., & Frazier, L. (2006). Immediate disambiguation of lexically ambiguous words during reading: Evidence from eye movements. British Journal of Psychology, 97, 467-482.
29. Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition, 14, 191-201.
30. Rayner, K., & Frazier, L. (1989). Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 779-790.
31. Rayner, K., Liversedge, S. P., White, S. J., & Vergilino-Perez, D. (2003). Reading disappearing text: Cognitive control of eye movements. Psychological science, 14, 385-388.
32. Rayner, K., Pacht, J. M., & Duffy, S. A. (1994). Effects of prior encounter and global discourse bias on the processing of lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 527-544.
33. 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.
34. Reichle, E. D., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (2007). Modeling the effects of lexical ambiguity on eye movements during reading. In R. P. G. van Gompel, M. H. Fischer, W. S. Murray, & R. L. Hill (Eds.), Eye movements: A window on mind and brain (pp. 271-292). Oxford: Elsevier.
35. Reichle, E. D., Warren, T., & McConnell, K. (2009). Using E-Z Reader to model the effects of higher level language processing on eye movements during reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 1-21. doi: 10. 3758/PBR. 16. 1. 1.
36. Reingold, E. M., Reichle, E. D., Glaholt, M. G., & Sheridan, H. (2012). Direct lexical control of eye movements in reading: Evidence from a survival analysis of fixation durations. Cognitive Psychology, 65, 177-206. doi: 10. 1016/j. cogpsych. 2012. 03. 001.
37. Reingold, E. M., & Sheridan, H. (2011). Eye movements and visual expertise in chess and medicine. In S. P. Liversedge, I. D. Gilchrist, & S. Everling (Eds.), Oxford handbook on eye movements (pp. 528-550). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
38. Reingold, E. M., Yang, J., & Rayner, K. (2010). The time course of word frequency and case alternation effects on fixation times in reading: Evidence for lexical control of eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 1677-1683. doi: 10. 1037/a0019959.
39. Sereno, S. C. (1995). Resolution of lexical ambiguity: Evidence from an eye movement priming paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 582-595.
40. Sereno, S. C., Brewer, C. C., & O'Donnell, P. J. (2003). Context effects in word recognition: Evidence for early interactive processing. Psychological Science, 14, 328-333.
41. Sereno, S. C., O'Donnell, P. J., & Rayner, K. (2006). Eye movements and lexical ambiguity resolution: Investigating the subordinate-bias effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 335-350. doi: 10. 1037/0096-1523. 32. 2. 335.
42. Sereno, S. C., Pacht, J. M., & Rayner, K. (1992). The effect of meaning frequency on processing lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Psychological Science, 3, 296-300. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1467-9280. 1992. tb00676. x.
43. Sereno, S. C., & Rayner, K. (2003). Measuring word recognition in reading: Eye movements and event-related potentials. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 489-493. doi: 10. 1016/j. tics. 2003. 09. 010.
44. Sheridan, H., Reingold, E. M., & Daneman, M. (2009). Using puns to study contextual influences on lexical ambiguity resolution: Evidence from eye movements. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 875-881. doi: 10. 3758/PBR. 16. 5. 875.
45. Sheridan, H., & Reingold, E. M. (in press). The time course of predictability effects in reading: Evidence from a survival analysis of fixation durations. Visual Cognition.
46. Staub, A. (2011). The effect of lexical predictability on distributions of eye fixation durations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 371-376. doi: 10. 3758/s13423-010-0046-9.
47. Staub, A., White, S. J., Drieghe, D., Hollway, E. C., & Rayner, K. (2010). Distributional effects of word frequency on eye fixation durations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 1280-1293. doi: 10. 1037/a0016896.
48. Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 645-659. doi: 10. 1016/S0022-5371(79)90355-4.
49. Vu, H., & Kellas, G. (1999). Contextual strength modulates the subordinate bias effect: Reply to Rayner, Binder, and Duffy. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52A, 853-855. doi: 10. 1080/713755863.
50. White, S. J. (2008). Eye movement control during reading: Effects of word frequency and orthographic familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 205-223. doi: 10. 1037/0096-1523. 34. 1. 205.
51. White, S. J., & Staub, A. (in press). The distribution of fixation durations during reading: Effects of stimulus quality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. doi: 10. 1037/a0025338.
52. White, S. J., Staub, A., Drieghe, D., & Liversedge, S. P. (2011, August). Word frequency effects during reading: Binocular fixations and the distribution of fixation durations. In 16th European Conference on Eye Movements (ECEM). Marseille, France.
53. White, S. J., Warren, T., Staub, A., & Reichle, E. D. (2011, August). The distribution of fixation durations during reading: Effects of stimulus quality and sentence wrap-up. In 16th European Conference on Eye Movements (ECEM). Marseille, France.
54. Wiley, J., & Rayner, K. (2000). Effects of titles on the processing of text and lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye movements. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1011-1021.