Subtlex-UK: A New and Improved Word Frequency Database for British English

Heuven, Walter J. B. van; Mandera, Paweł; Keuleers, Emmanuel; Brysbaert, Marc

doi:10.1080/17470218.2013.850521

Cited by 977 publications

(803 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

778

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In Experiment 1, each participant was shown 100 sentences with a high frequency critical 9 distractor (M = 831.8 words per million; Van Heuven et al, 2014), 100 sentences with a low 10 frequency critical distractor (M = 0.2 words per million, Van Heuven, et al, 2014), and 100 11 sentences with a 4-symbol string as a critical distractor (symbol distractors were created by 12 randomly choosing 1 of 24 unique combinations of @, #, % and &). In Experiment 2, each 13 participant was shown 100 sentences in the symbol condition (which was identical to Experiment 14 1), 100 sentences in the repeated condition that contained a critical distractor that was identical to 15 the target word, and 100 sentences in the control condition that contained a critical distractor that 16 was matched on frequency to the target (M = 44.2 words per million; Van Heuven et al, 2014).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Experiment 2, each 13 participant was shown 100 sentences in the symbol condition (which was identical to Experiment 14 1), 100 sentences in the repeated condition that contained a critical distractor that was identical to 15 the target word, and 100 sentences in the control condition that contained a critical distractor that 16 was matched on frequency to the target (M = 44.2 words per million; Van Heuven et al, 2014). 17…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Attention and eye-movement control in reading: The selective reading paradigm.

Reingold

Sheridan

Meadmore

et al. 2016

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1We introduced a novel paradigm for investigating covert attention and eye-movement control in 2 reading. In 2 experiments, participants read sentence words (shown in blue color) while ignoring 3 interleaved distractor strings (shown in orange color). Each single-line text display contained a 4 target word and a critical distractor. Critical distractors were located just prior to the target in the 5 text and were either words or symbol strings (e.g., @#%&). Target word availability for 6 parafoveal processing (i.e., preview validity) was also manipulated. The results indicated much 7 shallower processing of distractors than targets and this pattern was more pronounced for symbol 8 than word distractors. The influences of word frequency and fixation location on first-pass 9 fixation durations on distractors were dramatically different than the well-documented pattern 10 obtained in normal reading. Robust preview benefits were demonstrated both when the critical 11 distractors were fixated and when the critical distractors were skipped. Finally, with the 12 exception of larger preview benefits that were obtained in the condition in which the target and 13 critical distractor were identical, the magnitude of the preview effect was largely unaffected by 14 the nature of the critical distractor. Implications of the present paradigm and findings to the study 15 of eye-movement control in reading are discussed. 16 3 The use of eye movements to study reading has a rich history dating back over a century 1 (see Rayner, 1998Rayner, , 2009, for reviews). Readers move their eyes primarily forward in the text to 2 encounter new words. The magnitude of the typical forward movement (saccade) for readers of 3English is about 7-9 letter spaces. High-velocity saccadic eye movements, during which vision is 4 largely suppressed (Matin, 1974), occur at an average rate of 3-4 per second and are separated by 5 periods during which the eyes remain relatively still (fixations), and perceptual information is 6 extracted. Saccades are required in order to align the high-acuity foveal region of the retina (the 7 central 2° of vision) with the part of the text that is being encoded by the reader. However, 8 during each fixation, while the fixated word (word N) is primarily encoded using foveal vision, 9 parafoveal vision is used to extract perceptual information from at least the next two words in the 10 text (word N+1 and word N+2). Specifically, for readers of English the encoding of useful 11 perceptual information is confined to the perceptual span, an asymmetric region of the text 12 around the fixation point, which is limited to about 3-4 letter spaces to the left and 14-15 letter 13 spaces to the right of fixation (McConkie & Rayner, 1975). Importantly, when the area of useful 14 orthographic information during a fixation is restricted to word N, word N+1 and word N+2, 15 reading rate is approximately normal, while reading rate decreases by about 10% when only 16Word N and Word N+1 information is available and by over 30% wh...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Attention and eye-movement control in reading: The selective reading paradigm.

Reingold

Sheridan

Meadmore

et al. 2016

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Basically speaking, Word frequency is highly correlated with context frequency (R= 0.98) Relationship between word frequency and context frequency (both shown on logarithmic scale). Gray points show relationship for all words in the Touchstone Applied Science Associates Corpus ( Figure. 2) [45].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of word frequency and contextual diversity in visual word recognition: a mini review

Huang¹

2017

New Front Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contextual diversity refers to the number of contexts in which a word appears. It is traditionally believed that word frequency is an important factor affecting lexical access, but the presence of contextual diversity challenges the position of word frequency in lexical cognition. The research on contextual diversity and word frequency is mainly focused on two fields, namely word recognition and word learning. However, research outcomes concerning the mapping between contextual diversity and word frequency are inconsistent with each other: 1) Contextual diversity can replace word frequency, and is better than word frequency in terms of word recognition; 2) Word frequency and contextual diversity are two different variables that affect word recognition, both of which independently affect word recognition. No definite conclusion about the relationship between the two has been reached yet. Finally, we highlight topics that are in need of future systematic research.

show abstract

“…Word frequencies were calculated as Zipf values, based on the SUBTLEX-UK corpus (Van Heuven, Mandera, Keuleers, & Brysbaert, 2014). The high frequency words had significantly higher Zipf values (M = 5.24, SD = 0.30) than the low frequency words (M = 3.36, SD = 0.32) (t(59)=30.48, p < 0.001).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spontaneous rereading within sentences: Eye movement control and visual sampling.

White

Lantz

Paterson

2017

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments examine the role of previously read text in sentence comprehension and the control of eye movements during spontaneous re-reading. Spontaneous re-reading begins with a regressive saccade and involves re-inspection of previously read text. All three experiments employed the gaze contingent change technique to modulate the availability of previously read text. In Experiment 1 previously read text was permanently masked either immediately to the left of the fixated word (beyond wordn) or more than one word to the left (beyond wordn-1). The results of Experiment 1 indicate that the availability of the word immediately to the left (wordn-1) is important for comprehension. Experiments 2 and 3 further explored the role of previously read text beyond wordn-1. In these studies text beyond wordn-1 was replaced, retaining only word length information, or word length and shape information. Following a regression back within a sentence, meaningful text either re-appeared or remained unavailable during re-reading. The experiments show that the visual format of text beyond wordn-1 (the parafoveal postview) is important for triggering regressions. The results also indicate that, as least for more complex sentences, the availability of meaningful text is important in driving eye movement control during rereading. Keywords: re-reading, eye movements, regressionsSpontaneous re-reading within sentences 2 Considerable research has been undertaken into the nature of word recognition and eye movement control as the eyes initially move forward through text (Rayner, 2009).Models of eye movement control now provide good accounts of such "first-pass" reading behavior (Engbert, Longtin, & Kliegl, 2002, Reichle, Pollatsek, Fisher, & Rayner, 1998.Some research has also been undertaken into the processes underlying the re-reading that occurs for repeated readings of text (Hyönä, & Niemi, 1990;Raney, & Rayner, 1995).However compared to studies of reading during first-pass, relatively few studies have examined eye movement control for spontaneous re-reading. That is, re-reading of previously read text that occurs following a spontaneous regression back in the text. Ten to fifteen percent of fixations during reading are regressive (Rayner, 2009), hence spontaneous re-reading is a key aspect of the reading process.Re-reading may occur as a result of processing difficulty associated with text comprehension (e.g. Just & Carpenter, 1980; for a review see Clifton, Staub, & Rayner, 2007) or falling confidence in the identity of previously read words (Bicknell & Levy, 2010). Models of eye movement control predict that post-lexical processing modulates the likelihood of regressing back in the text (Engelmann, Vasishth, Engbert, & Kliegl, 2013;Reichle, Warren, & McConnell, 2009). However it is notoriously difficult to study the mechanisms underlying spontaneous re-reading as it does not always occur, and when it does occur, the timing and location of the re-reading is variable (von der Malsburg, Kliegl, & Vasishth, 2015; ...

show abstract

Subtlex-UK: A New and Improved Word Frequency Database for British English

Cited by 977 publications

References 30 publications

Attention and eye-movement control in reading: The selective reading paradigm.

Attention and eye-movement control in reading: The selective reading paradigm.

The role of word frequency and contextual diversity in visual word recognition: a mini review

Spontaneous rereading within sentences: Eye movement control and visual sampling.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About