The time course of contextual influences during lexical ambiguity resolution: Evidence from distributional analyses of fixation durations

In the lexical ambiguity literature, it is well-established that readers experience processing difficulties when they encounter biased homographs in a subordinate-instantiating prior context (i.e., the subordinate bias effect). To investigate the time course of this effect, the present study examined distributional analyses of first-fixation durations on 60 biased homographs that were each read twice: once in a subordinate-instantiating context and once in a dominant-instantiating context. Ex-Gaussian fitting revealed that the subordinate context distribution was shifted to the right of the dominant context distribution, with no significant contextual differences in the degree of skew. In addition, a survival analysis technique showed a significant influence of the subordinate versus dominant contextual manipulation as early as 139 ms from the start of fixation. These results indicate that the contextual manipulation had a fast-acting influence on the majority of fixation durations, which is consistent with the reordered access model’s assumption that prior context can affect the lexical access stage of reading.

[1]  Margery M. Lucas Context effects in lexical access: A meta-analysis , 1999, Memory & cognition.

[2]  Robert Tibshirani,et al.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap , 1994 .

[3]  George Kellas,et al.  Contextual Strength Modulates the Subordinate Bias Effect: Reply to Rayner, Binder, and Duffy , 1999 .

[4]  Keith Rayner,et al.  Reading Disappearing Text , 2003, Psychological science.

[5]  K. Rayner,et al.  Contextual effects on word perception and eye movements during reading , 1981 .

[6]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: part 1.: an account of basic findings , 1988 .

[7]  Keith Rayner,et al.  The time course of word frequency and case alternation effects on fixation times in reading: evidence for lexical control of eye movements. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[8]  S. Sereno,et al.  Context Effects in Word Recognition , 2003, Psychological science.

[9]  Erik D. Reichle,et al.  Using E-Z reader to model the effects of higher level language processing on eye movements during reading , 2009, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[10]  K. Rayner,et al.  Eye movements and lexical ambiguity resolution: investigating the subordinate-bias effect. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[11]  K. Rayner,et al.  Does contextual strength modulate the subordinate bias effect? A reply to Kellas and Vu , 1999, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[12]  Robin K. Morris,et al.  Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading , 1988 .

[13]  S. Sereno Resolution of lexical ambiguity: evidence from an eye movement priming paradigm. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[14]  Erik D. Reichle,et al.  Modeling the effects of lexical ambiguity on eye movements during reading , 2007 .

[15]  Keith Rayner,et al.  The role of age of acquisition and word frequency in reading: Evidence from eye fixation durations , 2006 .

[16]  K. Rayner,et al.  Measuring word recognition in reading: eye movements and event-related potentials , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[17]  G Kellas,et al.  Strength of context does modulate the subordinate bias effect: A reply to Binder and Rayner , 1999, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[18]  John J. L. Morton,et al.  Interaction of information in word recognition. , 1969 .

[19]  E. Reingold,et al.  Using puns to study contextual influences on lexical ambiguity resolution: Evidence from eye movements , 2009, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[20]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. , 1981 .

[21]  D. Swinney Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects , 1979 .

[22]  Charles A. Perfetti,et al.  Lexical ambiguity and sentence comprehension , 1975 .

[23]  Marc Brys,et al.  Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English , 2009 .

[24]  Eyal M. Reingold,et al.  The time course of predictability effects in reading: Evidence from a survival analysis of fixation durations , 2012 .

[25]  K. Rayner Eye movements in reading: Models and data , 2003, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[26]  Erik D. Reichle,et al.  Direct lexical control of eye movements in reading: Evidence from a survival analysis of fixation durations , 2012, Cognitive Psychology.

[27]  Stephen Dopkins,et al.  Lexical ambiguity and eye fixations in reading: A test of competing models of lexical ambiguity resolution , 1992 .

[28]  Erik D. Reichle,et al.  Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. , 1998, Psychological review.

[29]  K. Rayner,et al.  The effect of prior disambiguating context on the comprehension of ambiguous words: Evidence from eye movements. , 2001 .

[30]  E. Reingold,et al.  Eye movements and visual expertise in chess and medicine , 2011 .

[31]  D. Gorfein On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity. , 2001 .

[32]  K. Rayner,et al.  Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[33]  Robin L. Hill,et al.  Eye movements : a window on mind and brain , 2007 .

[34]  R. Ratcliff Group reaction time distributions and an analysis of distribution statistics. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[35]  K. Rayner,et al.  Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity , 1986, Memory & cognition.

[36]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Immediate disambiguation of lexically ambiguous words during reading: evidence from eye movements. , 2006, British journal of psychology.

[37]  K. Rayner,et al.  Effects of titles on the processing of text and lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye movements , 2000, Memory & cognition.

[38]  Adrian Staub,et al.  Journal of Experimental Psychology : Human Perception and Performance The Distribution of Fixation Durations During Reading : Effects of Stimulus Quality , 2011 .

[39]  Sarah J. White,et al.  Distributional effects of word frequency on eye fixation durations. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[40]  Katherine S Binder,et al.  Sentential and discourse topic effects on lexical ambiguity processing: An eye movement examination , 2003, Memory & cognition.

[41]  K. Rayner,et al.  The Effect of Meaning Frequency on Processing Lexically Ambiguous Words: Evidence from Eye Fixations , 1992 .

[42]  Robin K. Morris,et al.  Effects of syntactic category assignment on lexical ambiguity resolution in reading: An eye movement analysis , 2003, Memory & cognition.

[43]  S. T. Buckland,et al.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap. , 1994 .

[44]  Susan A. Duffy,et al.  Effects of Prior Encounter and Global Discourse Bias on the Processing of Lexically Ambiguous Words: Evidence From Eye Fixations , 1994 .

[45]  Scott D. Brown,et al.  Quantile maximum likelihood estimation of response time distributions , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[46]  S A Duffy,et al.  Global context effects on processing lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations , 2001, Memory & cognition.

[47]  J. Fodor The Modularity of mind. An essay on faculty psychology , 1986 .

[48]  Erik D. Reichle,et al.  Eye Movement Control during Reading: Effects of Word Frequency and Orthographic Familiarity Word Frequency Effects , 2022 .

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

[50]  K. Rayner,et al.  Contextual Strength and the Subordinate Bias Effect: Comment on Martin, Vu, Kellas, and Metcalf , 1999, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[51]  Adrian Staub,et al.  The effect of lexical predictability on distributions of eye fixation durations , 2011, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[52]  Denis Cousineau,et al.  Fitting distributions using maximum likelihood: Methods and packages , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[53]  Eyal M. Reingold,et al.  Direct control of fixation times in scene viewing: Evidence from analysis of the distribution of first fixation duration , 2012 .

[54]  G. Feng,et al.  Rowed to recovery: the use of phonological and orthographic information in reading Chinese and English. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[55]  K Rayner,et al.  The processing of homophonic homographs during reading: Evidence from eye movement studies , 1993, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[56]  W. Cooper,et al.  Sentence Processing: Psycholinguistic Studies Presented to Merrill Garrett. , 1980 .