How do we segment text? Two-stage chunking operation in reading

Chunking in language comprehension is a process that segments continuous linguistic input into smaller chunks that are in reader’s mental lexicon. Effective chunking during reading facilitates disambiguation and enhances efficiency for comprehension. However, the mechanisms of chunking remain elusive, especially in reading given that information arrives simultaneously yet the written systems may not have explicit cues for labeling boundaries such as Chinese. What are the mechanisms of chunking operation that mediates the reading of the text that normally contains hierarchical information? We investigated this question by manipulating the lexical status of the chunks at distinct levels of grain-size in four-character Chinese strings, including the two-character local chunk and four-character global chunk. Participants were asked to make lexical decision on these strings in a behavioral experiment, followed by a passive reading task when their electroencephalography (EEG) were recorded. The behavioral results showed that the lexical decision time of lexicalized two-character local chunks was influenced by the lexical status of four-character global chunk, but not vice versa, which indicated that the processing of global chunks possessed priority over the local chunks. The EEG results revealed that familiar lexical chunks were detected simultaneously at both levels and further processed in a different temporal order -- the onset of lexical access for the global chunks was earlier than that of local chunks. These consistent behavioral and EEG results suggest that chunking in reading occurs at multiple levels via a two-stage operation -- simultaneous detection and global-first recognition. Significance Statement The learners of a new language often read word by word. But why can proficient readers read multiple words at a time? The current study investigates how we efficiently segment a complicate text into smaller pieces and how we process these pieces. Participants read Chinese strings with different structures while their key-press responses and brain EEG signals were recorded. We found that texts were quickly (about 100 ms from their occurrences) segmented to varied sizes of pieces, and larger pieces were then processed earlier than small pieces. Our results suggest that readers can use existing knowledge to efficiently segment and process written information.

[1]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  Dual-route processing of complex words: New fMRI evidence from derivational suffixation , 2005, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.

[2]  E. Halgren,et al.  Top-down facilitation of visual recognition. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[3]  Erik D. Reichle,et al.  The E-Z Reader model of eye-movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models , 2003, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[4]  Dirk Koester,et al.  The morphosyntactic decomposition and semantic composition of German compound words investigated by ERPs , 2007, Brain and Language.

[5]  Beate Abel English idioms in the first language and second language lexicon: a dual representation approach , 2003 .

[6]  Stephen Monsell,et al.  The nature and locus of word frequency effects in reading. , 2012 .

[7]  M Coltheart,et al.  DRC: a dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. , 2001, Psychological review.

[8]  Geoffrey E. Hinton Mapping Part-Whole Hierarchies into Connectionist Networks , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[9]  David E. Huber,et al.  Measures of Spatial Similarity and Response Magnitude in MEG and Scalp EEG , 2007, Brain Topography.

[10]  E. Kaan,et al.  Representation and processing of multi-word expressions in the brain , 2017, Brain and Language.

[11]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Word chunk frequencies affect the processing of pronominal object-relative clauses , 2007, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[12]  Martyn Lloyd-Kelly,et al.  What's in a Name? The Multiple Meanings of “Chunk” and “Chunking” , 2016, Front. Psychol..

[13]  Colin Bannard,et al.  Stored Word Sequences in Language Learning , 2008, Psychological science.

[14]  G. A. Miller THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[15]  G. M. Reicher Perceptual recognition as a function of meaninfulness of stimulus material. , 1969, Journal of experimental psychology.

[16]  S. Andrews,et al.  Eye movements and morphological segmentation of compound words: There is a mouse in mousetrap , 2004 .

[17]  M. Laganaro,et al.  Comparison of single-word and adjective-noun phrase production using event-related brain potentials , 2015, Cortex.

[18]  K. Rayner Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. , 1998, Psychological bulletin.

[19]  Nick C. Ellis,et al.  Frequency effects in language acquisition: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. (Target article) , 2002 .

[20]  M. Brysbaert,et al.  SUBTLEX-CH: Chinese Word and Character Frequencies Based on Film Subtitles , 2010, PloS one.

[21]  Hao Zhu,et al.  Group-Level Multivariate Analysis in EasyEEG Toolbox: Examining the Temporal Dynamics Using Topographic Responses , 2018, Front. Neurosci..

[22]  Denis Brunet,et al.  Topographic ERP Analyses: A Step-by-Step Tutorial Review , 2008, Brain Topography.

[23]  Ramesh Krishnamurthy Language as chunks, not words , 2003 .

[24]  Spatiotemporal Analysis , 2014, Encyclopedia of Social Network Analysis and Mining.

[25]  R. Shprintzen,et al.  What's in a name? , 1990, The Cleft palate journal.

[26]  N. Snider,et al.  More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases , 2010 .

[27]  Sang Joon Kim,et al.  A Mathematical Theory of Communication , 2006 .

[28]  Erik D. Reichle,et al.  Eye movements in reading and information processing : , 2015 .

[29]  Zheng Zhiwei,et al.  Familiarity Contributes to Associative Memory:The Role of Unitization , 2015 .

[30]  Nick C. Ellis,et al.  Constructions, Chunking, and Connectionism: The Emergence of Second Language Structure , 2008 .

[31]  M. Bar A Cortical Mechanism for Triggering Top-Down Facilitation in Visual Object Recognition , 2003, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[32]  Yury Shtyrov,et al.  Multiple routes for compound word processing in the brain: Evidence from EEG☆ , 2013, Brain and Language.

[33]  David Poeppel,et al.  TopoToolbox: Using Sensor Topography to Calculate Psychologically Meaningful Measures from Event-Related EEG/MEG , 2011, Comput. Intell. Neurosci..

[34]  D. Navon Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception , 1977, Cognitive Psychology.

[35]  Marcus Taft,et al.  Reading and the Mental Lexicon , 1991 .

[36]  Carlo Semenza,et al.  Combining words in the brain: The processing of compound words.Introduction to the special issue , 2014, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[37]  Moshe Bar,et al.  Predictive Feedback and Conscious Visual Experience , 2012, Front. Psychology.