바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.21 No.2
Citation Share

Eye movements and sentence processing: Review on eye movement measurement

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology / 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

(2009). Eye movements and sentence processing: Review on eye movement measurement. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 21(2), 91-110, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2009.21.2.003
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed
PDF Download

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

Reference

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.

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy