바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

ACOMS+ 및 학술지 리포지터리 설명회

  • 한국과학기술정보연구원(KISTI) 서울분원 대회의실(별관 3층)
  • 2024년 07월 03일(수) 13:30
사전등록 바로가기
 

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

논문 상세

이전 다음
논문 투고

Vol.21 No.2

Citation Share

안구운동과 문장의 이해: 안구운동 측정시 방법론적 고려점들

Eye movements and sentence processing: Review on eye movement measurement

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물 / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2009, v.21 no.2, pp.91-110
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2009.21.2.003
이윤형 (대구가톨릭대학교)
이윤형. (2009). 안구운동과 문장의 이해: 안구운동 측정시 방법론적 고려점들. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 21(2), 91-110, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2009.21.2.003

초록

본 논문에서는 안구운동의 측정치들이 문장이해 과정에 관여하는 다양한 정보처리 기제를 어떻게 반영하는지를 살펴보고 영어 문장이해 과정을 설명하기 위해서 제안된 다양한 안구운동의 측정치들이 한글 문장 이해 과정을 설명하는데도 잘 적용될 수 있을지를 살펴보았다. 이를 위해 한글과 영어 문장읽기시 안구운동을 측정한 자료를 살펴보았는데 한글 문장 읽기시 안구운동을 측정한 자료를 다양한 안구운동의 측정치들을 이용해 분석한 결과는 다양한 안구운동의 측정치들이 한글 문장읽기시의 여러 정보처리 과정을 살펴보는데도 효과적으로 이용될 수 있다는 것을 보여주었다. 문장의 수준에 따른 정보처리 양상의 차이를 살펴본 영어 안구운동 자료 분석의 결과는 하나의 인지정보처리과정이 다양한 여러 안구운동의 측정치들에 반영될 수 있으며 여러 인지정보처리 과정들이 하나의 안구운동 측정치에 반영될 수도 있다는 것을 보여 주었다. 이와 같은 결과는 안구운동의 측정을 이용하여 각 실험 처치 조건에 따른 실시간 인지정보처리 과정의 차이를 살펴보는 방식의 실험 연구를 할 때에도 다양한 처치조건에 따른 처리 양상의 차이를 분명하게 살펴보려면 다양한 안구운동의 측정치를 개별적으로 고려하기보다는 종합적으로 살펴보는 것이 중요 하다는 것을 보여 주는 것이다.

keywords
안구운동의 통제, 안구운동의 측정, 문장 이해, 실시간 정보처리, eye movement control, eye movement measure, sentence processing, on-line, eye movement control, eye movement measure, sentence processing, on-line

Abstract

Experiments using eye movement to study various aspects of language processes implicitly assume tight links between eye movements and cognitive processes. Based on this assumption, the variability in the measures can be interpreted as reflecting different on-line processes and eye movement measures can be used to infer moment-to-moment cognitive processes. Therefore, most of the recent studies in sentence processing using eye movements have employed various measurements to better understand human sentence processing mechanisms. The different measurements offered by eye movement analysis are valuable for distinguishing the time course of various psycholinguistic processes such as early lexical processes, later structure building processes, and sentence integration processes. However, the results of this study clearly show that certain eye movement measures do not always represent certain cognitive process. Instead, a single cognitive process may be reflected in many eye movement measures, while a group of other cognitive processes may be reflected in only a single eye movement measure. To find various on-line sentence processing patterns or strategies during reading, it is very important to incorporate various eye movement measures into several groups. However it is more important to inspect various eye movement measures individually while considering results from other measures comprehensively. With doing so, we can get better idea about our on-line sentence processing mechanism, which might be impossible to catch otherwise. Also, this approach fit better with the nature of highly cross-related eye movement measures.

keywords
안구운동의 통제, 안구운동의 측정, 문장 이해, 실시간 정보처리, eye movement control, eye movement measure, sentence processing, on-line, eye movement control, eye movement measure, sentence processing, on-line

참고문헌

1.

고성룡, 윤낙영 (2007). 우리 문장 읽기에서 안구 운동의 특성: 어절 길이, 단어빈도 및 착지점 관련 효과. 인지과학, 18(4), 325- 350.

2.

고성룡, 홍효진, 윤소정, 조병환 (2008). 우리글 명사 어절에서의 단어 빈도 효과: 안구운동 추적 연구. 한국심리학회지: 실험, 20(1), 21-37.

3.

김영진 (2004). Resolving grammatical marking ambiguities of Korean. 인지과학, 15(4), 49- 59.

4.

이춘길 (2004). 한글을 읽는 눈의 움직임. 서울: 서울대학교 출판부

5.

Binder, K. (2003). Sentential and discourse topic effects on lexical ambiguity processing: An eye movement examination. Memory & Cognition, 31, 690-702.

6.

Binder, K., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (1999). Extraction of information to the left of the fixated word in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1162-1172.

7.

Boland, J. E., & Blodgett, A. (2001). Understanding the constrains on syntactic generation: Lexical bias and discourse congruency effects on eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 391-411.

8.

Boland, J. E. (2004). Linking eye movements to sentence comprehension in reading and listening. In Carreiras, M & Clifton, c. Jr. (Eds.), The on-line study of sentence comprehension (51-76). NY: Psychology Press.

9.

Caplan, D., Alpert, N., & Waters, G. (1998). Effects of syntactic structure and prepositional number on patterns of regional blood flow. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 541-552.

10.

Caplan, D., Alpert, N., & Waters, G. (1999). PET studies of syntactic processing with auditory sentence presentation. NeuroImage, 9, 343-351.

11.

Caplan, D., Vijayanm S., Kuperberg, G., West, C., Waters, G., Greve, D., & Dale, A. M. (2001). Vascular response to syntactic processing: Event-related fMRI study of relative clause. Human Brain Mapping, 15, 26-38.

12.

Feng, G. (2003). Throwing the baby out with the bathwater: Problems in modeling aggregated eye-movement data. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26, 482-483.

13.

Folk, J. R. & Morris, R. K. (1995). Multiple lexical codes in reading: Evidence from eye movements, naming time, and oral reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1412-1429.

14.

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.

15.

Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178-210.

16.

Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1990). Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 181-200.

17.

Gordon, P.C., Hendrick, R., Johnson, M., & Lee, Y. (2006). Similarity-Based Interference During Language Comprehension: Evidence from Eye Tracking During Reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 32, 1304-1321.

18.

Inhoff, A. W. (1984). Two stages of word processing during eye fixations in the reading of prose. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 612-624.

19.

Inhoff, A. W., Radach, R., Eiter, B. M., & Juhasz, B. (2003). Distinct subsystems for the parafoveal processing of spatial and linguistic information during eye fixations in reading. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A, 803-827.

20.

Inhoff, A. W., Radach, R., Eiter, B. M., & Skelly, M. (2003). Exterior letters are not privileged in the early stage of visual word recognition during reading: comment on Jordan, Thomas, Patching, and Scott-Brown (2003). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 29, 894-899.

21.

Inhoff, A.W., & Radach, R. (1998). Definition and computation of oculomotor measures in the study of cognitive process. In Underwood, G. (Ed). Eye Guidance in Reading and Scene Perception. New York: Elsevier.

22.

Irwin, D. E. (1998). Lexical processing during saccadic eye movements. Cognitive Psychology, 36, 1-27.

23.

Juhasz, B. J., & Rayner, K. (2003). Investigating the effects of a set of intercorrelated variables on eye fixation durations in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 29, 1312-1318.

24.

Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., Keller, A., Eddy, F., & Thulborn. K. (1996). Brain activation modulated by sentence comprehension. Science, 274, 114-116.

25.

Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329-354.

26.

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.

27.

King, J., & Just, M. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 580-602.

28.

King, J., & Kutas, M. (1995). Who did what and When? Using word and clause level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 376-395.

29.

Lee, Y., Lee, H., & Gordon, P. C. (2007). Linguistic complexity and information structure in Korean: Evidence from eye-tracking during reading. Cognition, 104, 495-534.

30.

Liversedge, S. P., Paterson, K. B., & Pickering, M. J. (1998). Eye movements and measures of reading time. In G. Underwood. (Ed). Eye Guidance in Reading and Scene Perception, (pp. 55-75). New York: Elsevier.

31.

Mauner, G., Melinger, A., Koening, J., & Bienvenue, B. (2002). When is schematic participant information encoded? Evidence from eye-monitoring. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 386-406.

32.

McDonald, S. A., & Shillcock, R. C. (2004). Lexical predictability effects on eye fixations during reading. In Carreiras, M & Clifton, c. Jr. (Eds.), The on-line study of sentence comprehension (77-94). NY: Psychology Press.

33.

Morris, R. K. (1994). Lexical and message-level sentence context effects on fixation times in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 92-103.

34.

Murray, W. S. (1998). Sentence Processing: Issues and Measures. In G. Underwood. (Ed). Eye Guidance in Reading and Scene Perception, (pp. 649-663). New York: Elsevier.

35.

Pickering, M. J., Frisson, S., Mcelree, D., & Traxler, M. J. (2004). Eye movements and semantic composition. In Carreiras, M & Clifton, c. Jr. (Eds.), The on-line study of sentence comprehension (33-50). NY: Psychology Press.

36.

Raney, G. E., & Rayner, K. (1995). Word frequency effects and eye movements during two readings of a text. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 151-172.

37.

Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372-422.

38.

Rayner, K., & Well, A. (1996). Effect of contextual constraint on eye movements in reading: A further examination. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 504-509.

39.

Rayner, K., Warren, T., Juhasz, B. J., & Liversedge, S. P. (2004). The effect of plausibility on eye movements in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 1290-1301.

40.

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.

41.

Traxler, M. J., & Pickering, M. J. (1996). Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 454-475.

42.

Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., & McElree, B. (2002). Coercion in sentence processing: Evidence from eye-movements and self-paced reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 530-547.

43.

Traxler, M., Morris, R., & Seely, R. (2002). Processing subject and object relative clauses: evidence from the eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 69-90.

44.

Van Gompel, R. P. G., & Liversedge, S. P. (2003). The Influence of morphological information on cataphoric pronoun assignment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 29, 128-139.

45.

Van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J.. (2001). Reanalysis in sentence processing: Evidence against current constraint-based and two-stage models. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 225-258.

46.

Vitu, F., & McConkie, G. W. (2000). Regressive saccades and word perception in adult reading. In Kenny, A., Radach, R., Heller, D., & Pynte, J. (Eds). Reading as a Perceptual Process. (301-326). New York: Elsevier.

47.

Vitu, F., Brysbaert, M., & Lancelin, D. (2004). A test of parafoveal-on-foveal effects with pairs of orthographically related words. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 154-177.

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물

논문 투고 OA 정책