Abstract

This is the first attempt at characterizing reading difficulty in Hindi using naturally occurring sentences. We created the Potsdam-Allahabad Hindi Eyetracking Corpus by recording eye-movement data from 30 participants at the University of Allahabad, India. The target stimuli were 153 sentences selected from the beta version of the Hindi-Urdu treebank. We find that word- or low-level predictors (syllable length, unigram and bigram frequency) affect first-pass reading times, regression path duration, total reading time, and outgoing saccade length. An increase in syllable length results in longer fixations, and an increase in word unigram and bigram frequency leads to shorter fixations. Longer syllable length and higher frequency lead to longer outgoing saccades. We also find that two predictors of sentence comprehension difficulty, integration and storage cost, have an effect on reading difficulty. Integration cost (Gibson, 2000) was approximated by calculating the distance (in words) between a dependent and head; and storage cost (Gibson, 2000), which measures difficulty of maintaining predictions, was estimated by counting the number of predicted heads at each point in the sentence. We find that integration cost mainly affects outgoing saccade length, and storage cost affects total reading times and outgoing saccade length. Thus, word-level predictors have an effect in both early and late measures of reading time, while predictors of sentence comprehension difficulty tend to affect later measures. This is, to our knowledge, the first demonstration using eye-tracking that both integration and storage cost influence reading difficulty.

Highlights

  • @yXyydd mTT2` 8X88yd yXR9Rd yXyRyy yXyyd3 @yXyy9R yXyR3R yXyR8e yXyy9N yXyyjR yXyy9N yXyR98 yXyy98 yXyyey yXyyey mTT2` 8XdRd8 yXR8y9 yXyRkN yXyRRd @yXyRje yXykd8 yXyy8k @yXyRyR yXyy99 yXyyNe yXyRjy yXyy9R yXyyjk yXyyNk.

  • "v2bBM HBM2` KBt2/ KQ/2Hb mbBM; aiM- p2`@ bBQM kX8 UaiM .2p2HQTK2Mi h2K- kyR9VX q2 }i 7mHH pBM+2@+QpBM+2 KiB+2b 7Qi?2 bm#D2+i@ M/ Bi2K@ H2p2H KBM 2z2+ib M/ BMi2`+iBQMb- BM+Hm/BM; +Q2HiBQM 2biBKi2b UBX2X- r2 }i irQ 14 × 14 pBM+2@+QpBM+2 KiB+2b 7Qbm#D2+i M/ Bi2K 2z2+ib- `2bT2+iBp2HvVX PM2 Q7 i?2 /pMi;2b Q7 mbBM; "v2bBM ?B2``+?B+H KQ/@ 2Hbi?2` i?M 7`2[m2MiBbi QM2b Bb i?i r2 +M /B2+iHv +QKTmi2 i?2 TQbi2`BQ TQ##BHBiv Q7 i?2 +Q2{+B2Mi Q7 TiB+mH 2z2+i #2BM; TQbBiBp2 Q M2;iBp2 ;Bp2M i?2 /ic mMHBF2 i?2 7`2[m2MiBbi TTQ+?- i?2`2 Bb MQ M22/ iQ BM/B2+iHv /`r BM72`2M+2b #Qmi i?2 2z2+i #v TT2HBM; iQ i?2 [m2biBQM#H2 TQ+2/m2 Q7 `2D2+iBM; MmHH ?vTQi?@ 2bBb M/ +QKTmiBM; T@pHm2 Ub22- 7Q 2tKTH2- :2HKM UkyRjVVX MQi?2` /pMi;2 Bb i?i r2 +M }i biiBb@ iB+H KQ/2H i?i iF2b BMiQ ++QmMi HH TQbbB#Hv2H2pMi pBM+2 +QKTQM2MibX h?Bb +m2MiHv +MMQi #2 /QM2 rBi?

  • BQK2 2pB/2M+2 /Q2b 2tBbi 7QbiQ;2 +Qbi U*?2M:B#bQM- qQH7- kyy8V- i?2 T2b2Mi rQF Kv #2 i?2 }`bi 2v2i+FBM; bim/v mbBM; MimHHv@Q++mBM; b2Mi2M+2b i?i BMp2biB;i2b i?Bb K2iB+X h?2 2pB/2M+2 BM 7pQ Q7 biQ;2 +Qbi ?b BMi2`2biBM; BKTHB+iBQMb 7Qi?2QB2b Q7 2tT2+iiBQM@#b2/ TQ+2bbBM;X h?2 +m2Mi pB2r BM i?2 }2H/ Q7 b2Mi2M+2 TQ+2bbBM; Bb i?i i?2 /QKBMMi T2@ /B+iQ Q7 2tT2+iiBQM +Qbi Bb bmTBbH, i?2 +QM/BiBQMH TQ##BHBiv Q7 M mT+QKBM; Ti Q7 bT22+?

Read more

Summary

Introduction

@yXyydd mTT2` 8X88yd yXR9Rd yXyRyy yXyyd3 @yXyy9R yXyR3R yXyR8e yXyy9N yXyyjR yXyy9N yXyR98 yXyy98 yXyyey yXyyey mTT2` 8XdRd8 yXR8y9 yXyRkN yXyRRd @yXyRje yXykd8 yXyy8k @yXyRyR yXyy99 yXyyNe yXyRjy yXyy9R yXyyjk yXyyNk.

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call