4.3 Article

The Importance of Reading Naturally: Evidence From Combined Recordings of Eye Movements and Electric Brain Potentials

期刊

COGNITIVE SCIENCE
卷 41, 期 -, 页码 1232-1263

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12384

关键词

Reading; Sentence comprehension; ERP; Eye movements; Regressions

资金

  1. German Research Foundation (DFG) within the DFG Research Group 868, Mind and Brain Dynamics
  2. Feodor Lynen Research Fellowship by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation
  3. NIH [HD065829]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

How important is the ability to freely control eye movements for reading comprehension? And how does the parser make use of this freedom? We investigated these questions using coregistration of eye movements and event-related brain potentials (ERPs) while participants read either freely or in a computer-controlled word-by-word format (also known as RSVP). Word-by-word presentation and natural reading both elicited qualitatively similar ERP effects in response to syntactic and semantic violations (N400 and P600 effects). Comprehension was better in free reading but only in trials in which the eyes regressed to previous material upon encountering the anomaly. A more fine-grained ERP analysis revealed that these regressions were strongly associated with the well-known P600 effect. In trials without regressions, we instead found sustained centro-parietal negativities starting at around 320ms post-onset; however, these negativities were only found when the violation occurred in sentence-final position. Taken together, these results suggest that the sentence processing system engages in strategic choices: In response to words that don't match built-up expectations, it can either explore alternative interpretations (reflected by regressions, P600 effects, and good comprehension) or pursue a good-enough processing strategy that tolerates a deficient interpretation (reflected by progressive saccades, sustained negativities, and relatively poor comprehension).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据