The prosodic property of lexical stress affects eye movements during silent reading

Ashby, Jane; Clifton, Charles

doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2004.12.006

Cited by 126 publications

(147 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

131

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The present study extends these findings by showing that the syllable layer of the phonological representation also has an impact on saccade target selection. A first indication that prosodic phonological information could affect saccade planning was reported by Ashby and Clifton (2005), who showed that the number of stressed syllables influenced the number of fixations on high-and low-frequency words. Our data indicate that such an influence is not limited to withinword saccades but can also affect the planning of betweenword saccades.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

The influence of number of syllables on word skipping during reading

Fitzsimmons

Drieghe

2011

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

The influence of number of syllables on word skipping during reading

Fitzsimmons

Drieghe

2011

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Previous reading research indicates that skilled readers activate prosodic information when silently reading sentences (Ashby, 2006;Ashby & Clifton, 2005;Ashby & Rayner, 2004). Ashby and Rayner (2004) found a syllable effect in their parafoveal preview experiment, yet a syllable effect did not appear when the prime was presented foveally in a fast-priming paradigm.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, it is interesting that the syllable effect appeared in isolated word recognition. Four previous eye movement studies reported prosodic processing during the silent reading of sentences (Ashby, 2006;Ashby & Clifton, 2005;Ashby & Rayner, 2004;Hirotani, Frazier, & Rayner, 2006). In each study, it was speculated that readers begin activating sentence-level prosody to support later comprehension processes (Fodor, 1998).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prosodic phonological representations early in visual word recognition.

Ashby

Martin

2008

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments examined the nature of the phonological representations used during visual word recognition. We tested whether a minimality constraint (R. Frost, 1998) limits the complexity of early representations to a simple string of phonemes. Alternatively, readers might activate elaborated representations that include prosodic syllable information before lexical access. In a modified lexical decision task (Experiment 1), words were preceded by parafoveal previews that were congruent with a target's initial syllable as well as previews that contained 1 letter more or less than the initial syllable. Lexical decision times were faster in the syllable congruent conditions than in the incongruent conditions. In Experiment 2, we recorded brain electrical potentials (electroencephalograms) during single word reading in a masked priming paradigm. The event-related potential waveform elicited in the syllable congruent condition was more positive 250 -350 ms posttarget compared with the waveform elicited in the syllable incongruent condition. In combination, these experiments demonstrate that readers process prosodic syllable information early in visual word recognition in English. They offer further evidence that skilled readers routinely activate elaborated, speechlike phonological representations during silent reading.Keywords: phonology, syllables, reading, word recognition, minimalityNumerous word recognition studies have demonstrated that phonology plays a role in reading, yet the nature of readers' phonological representations is just beginning to be examined. An improved understanding of the nature of phonological representations in visual word recognition helps to conceptualize the interface between spoken language systems and reading-specific processes and, thus, holds implications for developing computational models of word recognition and eye movement control during reading. The present experiments investigated the nature of the phonological representations used in word recognition with two experimental paradigms: a modified lexical decision experiment and an event-related potentials (ERP) experiment. Specifically, we asked whether early phonological representations are complex enough to include suprasegmental, syllable information.One central question about the nature of early phonological representations involves the claim of minimality or the idea that the phonological representations used in word recognition contain only the minimal amount of information necessary to access a unique lexical entry (Frost, 1998). Frost's (1998) strong phonological theory of word recognition holds that phonological representations are necessarily activated at some point in word recognition, but early phonological representations contain only a sketch of the available phonological information. Lexical access activates a full phonological representation that is retrieved from memory. According to Frost (1998), a minimality constraint on early phonological representations permits speedy lexical access and accounts for the i...

show abstract

“…the implicit prosody hypothesis (e.g. Ashby & Clifton, 2005;Fodor, 1998). Moreover, studies indicate a positive relationship between prosodic proficiency (i.e.…”

Section: Focus Structure In Language Processingmentioning

confidence: 98%

Focus in Dutch reading: an eye-tracking experiment with heritage speakers of Turkish

Rijswijk

Muntendam

Dijkstra

2017

Language, Cognition and Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines whether heritage speakers of Turkish in the Netherlands interpret focus in written Dutch sentences differently from L1 speakers of Dutch (controls). Where most previous studies examined effects from the dominant L2 on the heritage language, we investigated whether there are effects from the weaker heritage language on the dominant L2. Dutch and Turkish differ in focus marking. Dutch primarily uses prosody to encode focus, whereas Turkish uses prosody and syntax, with a preverbal area for focused information and a postverbal area for background information. In written sentences no explicit prosody is available, which possibly enhances the role of syntactic cues in interpreting focus. An eye-tracking experiment suggests that, unlike the controls, the bilinguals associate the preverbal area with focus and the postverbal area with background information. These findings are in line with transfer from the weaker L1 to the dominant L2 at the syntax-discourse interface.ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

The prosodic property of lexical stress affects eye movements during silent reading

Cited by 126 publications

References 22 publications

The influence of number of syllables on word skipping during reading

The influence of number of syllables on word skipping during reading

Prosodic phonological representations early in visual word recognition.

Focus in Dutch reading: an eye-tracking experiment with heritage speakers of Turkish

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About