Abstract
Contextual constraint is a key factor affecting a word’s fixation duration and its likelihood of being fixated during reading. Previous research has generally demonstrated additive effects of predictability and frequency in fixation times. Studies examining the role of parafoveal preview have shown that greater preview benefit is obtained from more predictable and higher frequency words versus less predictable and lower frequency words. In two experiments, we investigated effects of target word predictability, frequency and parafoveal preview. A 3 (Predictability: low, medium, high) × 2 (Frequency: low, high) design was used with Preview (valid, invalid) manipulated between experiments. With valid previews, we found main effects of Predictability and Frequency in both fixation time and fixation probability measures, including an interaction in early fixation measures. With invalid preview, we again found main effects of Predictability and Frequency in fixation times, but no evidence of an interaction. Fixation probability showed a weak Predictability effect and Predictability–Frequency interaction. Predictability interacted with Preview in early fixation time and fixation probability measures. Our findings suggest that high levels of contextual constraint exert an early influence during lexical processing in reading. Results are discussed in terms of models of language processing and eye movement control.
Highlights
Eye movement studies which have explicitly investigated the combined effects of Predictability and Frequency in reading, in comparison, are far less prevalent (e.g., Hand et al, 2010; Hand et al, 2012; Kliegl et al, 2004; Miellet et al, 2007; Rayner, Ashby, et al, 2004)
In the HP condition, there was no reliable difference in processing times associated with LF and HF words
It seems that a strongly biasing context can neutralize word frequency effects, acting within a developing discourse to favorably constrain the set of candidate words
Summary
Eye movement studies which have explicitly investigated the combined effects of Predictability and Frequency in reading, in comparison, are far less prevalent (e.g., Hand et al, 2010; Hand et al, 2012; Kliegl et al, 2004; Miellet et al, 2007; Rayner, Ashby, et al, 2004). A separate set of studies, has found interactive effects of Predictability and Frequency, with greater contextual facilitation for LF than HF words (for a discussion, see Hand et al, 2010) These studies have used word naming or lexical decision paradigms (e.g., Stanovich & West, 1983; West & Stanovich, 1982), event-related potentials (ERPs; for example, Sereno, Brewer, & O’Donnell, 2003; Van Petten & Kutas, 1990) and eye fixation times (e.g., Inhoff, 1984). A greater amount of content preceding a target may allow context effects to develop more fully (e.g., Hand et al., Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 71(1)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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
