Parafoveal words can modulate sentence meaning: Electrophysiological evidence from an RSVP‐with‐flanker task

Abstract

During natural reading, readers can take up some visual information from notyet-fixated words to the right of the current fixation and it is well-established that this parafoveal preview facilitates the subsequent foveal processing of the word. However, the extraction and integration of word meaning from parafoveal words and their possible influence on the semantic content of the sentence are controversial. In the current study, we recorded event-related potentials (ERPs) in the RSVP-with-flankers paradigm to test whether and how updates of sentential meaning, based only on parafoveal information, may influence the subsequent foveal processing. In Chinese sentences, the congruency of parafoveal and foveal target words with the sentence was orthogonally manipulated. In contrast to previous research, we also controlled for potentially confounding effects of parafoveal-to-foveal repetition priming (identity preview effects) on the N400. Crucially, we found that the classic effect of foveal congruency on the N400 component only appeared when the word in preview had been congruent with sentence meaning; in contrast, there was no N400 as a function of foveal incongruency when the preview word had also been incongruent. These results indicate that sentence meaning rapidly adapts to parafoveal preview, altering the semantic context for the subsequently fixated word. We also show that correct parafoveal preview generally attenuates the N400 once a word is fixated, regardless of congruency. Taken together, our findings underline the highly generative and adaptive framework of language comprehension.

Parafoveal preview benefit in a conflicting sentential context: Evidence from ERPs

“…If repetition of a previously fixated word triggers a cascade of processes, then repetition of preview word may involve similar processes. The results of some studies are consistent with this view (e.g., Dimigen et al, 2012 ; Li et al, 2015 ; Antúnez et al, 2021 ; Dimigen and Ehinger, 2021 ; Li et al, 2022 ). For example, Dimigen et al (2012) found effect of repetition of a word from preview beginning after the N1 peak, reaching a maximum around 250 ms in occipitotemporal cortex.…”

“…The EEG epochs of accepted trials were segmented around the onset of the parafoveal target word, from −200 to 1,500 ms, and baseline-corrected by subtracting a 100 ms pre-stimulus baseline. We defined an ROI of four occipitotemporal electrodes (PO9, PO7, PO8, PO10) to test the early preview positivity (e.g., Dimigen et al, 2012 ; Li et al, 2015 , 2022 ; Antúnez et al, 2021 ), and an ROI of four centroparietal locations (Cz, Pz, CP1, CP2) to test the N400 and the LPC component (e.g., Dimigen et al, 2012 ; Li et al, 2015 , 2022 ; Antúnez et al, 2021 ). The time windows of 150–250 ms, 250–450 ms and 500–800 ms after the onset of the targets in the foveal position were defined to test the preview positivity, N400, and LPC components, respectively (e.g., Grainger et al, 2006 ; Dimigen et al, 2012 ; Rommers and Federmeier, 2018 ; Antúnez et al, 2021 ).…”

“…To our knowledge, only one EEG study using Chinese materials has addressed the question of whether a word’s plausibility modulates the identity preview benefit ( Li et al, 2022 ). However, because the main purpose of that study was to investigate the interaction of preview plausibility and foveal plausibility on foveal word processing, there was relatively limited manipulation of repetition priming.…”

Parafoveal and foveal N400 effects in natural reading: A timeline of semantic processing from fixation‐related potentials

“…valid preview can also reduce N400 amplitude, shown in Li, Dimigen, et al (2022). Second, such an interaction could be plausibility driven, that is, reflect a genuine and higher level interplay between the processing of plausibility in parafoveal and foveal vision.…”

“…We also expected an interaction between parafoveal and foveal plausibility in the N400 window. Note again that in the current paradigm (Barber et al, 2013;Li et al, 2015), two distinct mechanisms can cause such an interaction (Li, Dimigen, et al, 2022): First, as for the preview positivity, a F I G U R E 5 Effect of preview validity on early brain response aligned to the foveal target fixation (word n). Shown are FRP waveforms at the left-posterior ROI as a function of whether the preview during the pretarget fixation consisted of the same word (valid) or a different word (invalid).…”