1982
DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.8.5.400
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cognitive processes in skimming stories.

Abstract: for their guidance and contributions to this work. I am grateful to James Miller for his help in conducting the simulations reported in Experiment 4, and to Linda Sala for many important discussions about skimming and reading in general. I also thank Henry Roediger, Douglas Vipond, and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful editorial suggestions.Requests for reprints should be sent to Michael Masson,

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
56
0

Year Published

1983
1983
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 57 publications
(59 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
(79 reference statements)
3
56
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It was expected that if the performance deficit observed in Experiment 1 was at least partly due to poor integrative processing of ideas across sentences during rapid sequential presentation of text, subjects probably would not be able to make the best possible use of the visual information available to them to generate a representative text macrostructure. When skimming, readers do not seem to spend very different amounts of time viewing gist-relevant as opposed to irrelevant information (Masson, 1982;Just et al, Note 1), but their conceptual processing of sampled information is sufficiently selective to produce acceptable macrostructure representations (Masson, 1982; Masson et a1., Note 2).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It was expected that if the performance deficit observed in Experiment 1 was at least partly due to poor integrative processing of ideas across sentences during rapid sequential presentation of text, subjects probably would not be able to make the best possible use of the visual information available to them to generate a representative text macrostructure. When skimming, readers do not seem to spend very different amounts of time viewing gist-relevant as opposed to irrelevant information (Masson, 1982;Just et al, Note 1), but their conceptual processing of sampled information is sufficiently selective to produce acceptable macrostructure representations (Masson, 1982; Masson et a1., Note 2).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is also true, however, that according to comprehension tests readers are not very accurate at visually selecting goal-relevant information for processing (Masson, 1982;Masson, Carpenter, & Just, Note 2). Important information is often missed while a good deal of irrelevant information is sampled.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The average reading speed in printed text is 200-300 words per minute (Masson, 1982). Reynolds, Standiford, and Anderson (1979) timed subjects' reading speed of 12 sections of a 48-page text presented via a microcomputer.…”
Section: Computer Presentation Of Text Versus the Printed Pagementioning
confidence: 99%
“…This failure to locate relevant information may be due to insufficient attention to, and encoding of, each word. Alternatively, failure to locate relevant information may be due to limited memorial capacity for printed information (Masson, 1982).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Conceptual processes, on the other hand, use global knowledge not contained in the document itself, but rather in the knowl-edge that the author implies in the document or in the domain knowledge the indexer possesses. Models of conceptual and perceptual processes are presented in [8,16,21].…”
Section: An Overview Of Subject Indexingmentioning
confidence: 99%