What Eye Movements Tekk About Identifying Compound Words in Reading an(6)
In our first eye movement study[16]on this topic we observed an effect of reading perspective both in the first-pass fixation time and in look-back fixation time. Readers spent significantly longer time reading the perspective-relevant sentences than the perspective-irrelevant sentences.(It should be mentioned that in all our experiments we have also found a better memory for perspective-relevant than perspective-irrelevant information.)Moreover, we observed differences in the timing of the perspective effect among our reader groups. They all demonstrated a reliable perspective effect in processing, but in different points in time. The high-capacity readers demonstrated the effect already in the first-pass fixation time, whereas the low-capacity readers showed it only in the look-back fixation time(i.e., with some delay). These data are consistent with the strategic allocation of attention view of working memory[19], according to which high-capacity readers are better able to efficiently allocate attention to task-relevant information and away from task-irrelevant information.
, 百拇医药
In the follow-up study[17], we wanted to compare the effect of reading perspective for a text on familiar contents to that observed for a text on unfamiliar contents(in the 2002 study, we used a text on unfamiliar contents; the text described four remote countries). The text with familiar contents described four diseases(see above)the readers had ample prior knowledge about, while the text with unfamiliar contents described four largely unknown diseases(trigeminusneuralgy, typhus, cystic fibrosis, and scleroderma). Theoretically, the comparison between texts of familiar versus unfamiliar contents is interesting as it makes contact with the notion of long-term working memory put forth by Ericsson and Kintsch[21]. According to this conception, working memory capacity is related to the ability to efficiently use prior knowledge during encoding. If so, high-capacity readers should be able to make better use of their prior knowledge than low-capacity readers in encoding to memory perspective-relevant information of the familiar disease text.
, 百拇医药
This was in fact what we found. In the familiar diseases text, the high-capacity readers took no longer time to read the perspective relevant than perspective irrelevant sentences. Yet, after reading they showed a clearly better memory for relevant than irrelevant information. We argue that this is because they have fast access to prior knowledge that can be readily brought to bear to help encode the relevant information to memory during reading. That is why they did not need to fixate any longer on relevant than irrelevant target sentences. The low-capacity readers, on the other hand, did need to do so. Their first-pass and look-back fixation times were significantly longer for perspective relevant than perspective irrelevant sentences. All in all, the pattern of our results is consistent with the notion of long-term working memory proposed by Ericsson and Kintsch[21]., http://www.100md.com(Ｊｕｋｋａ Ｈｙöｎä)
, 百拇医药
In the follow-up study[17], we wanted to compare the effect of reading perspective for a text on familiar contents to that observed for a text on unfamiliar contents(in the 2002 study, we used a text on unfamiliar contents; the text described four remote countries). The text with familiar contents described four diseases(see above)the readers had ample prior knowledge about, while the text with unfamiliar contents described four largely unknown diseases(trigeminusneuralgy, typhus, cystic fibrosis, and scleroderma). Theoretically, the comparison between texts of familiar versus unfamiliar contents is interesting as it makes contact with the notion of long-term working memory put forth by Ericsson and Kintsch[21]. According to this conception, working memory capacity is related to the ability to efficiently use prior knowledge during encoding. If so, high-capacity readers should be able to make better use of their prior knowledge than low-capacity readers in encoding to memory perspective-relevant information of the familiar disease text.
, 百拇医药
This was in fact what we found. In the familiar diseases text, the high-capacity readers took no longer time to read the perspective relevant than perspective irrelevant sentences. Yet, after reading they showed a clearly better memory for relevant than irrelevant information. We argue that this is because they have fast access to prior knowledge that can be readily brought to bear to help encode the relevant information to memory during reading. That is why they did not need to fixate any longer on relevant than irrelevant target sentences. The low-capacity readers, on the other hand, did need to do so. Their first-pass and look-back fixation times were significantly longer for perspective relevant than perspective irrelevant sentences. All in all, the pattern of our results is consistent with the notion of long-term working memory proposed by Ericsson and Kintsch[21]., http://www.100md.com(Ｊｕｋｋａ Ｈｙöｎä)