Effect of contextual diversity on word recognition in different semantic contexts

Abstract

Efficient word recognition is important to facilitate reading comprehension. Two important factors influence word recognition—word frequency (WF) and contextual diversity (CD)—but studies have not reached consistent conclusions on their role. Based on previous studies, the present study strictly controlled the anticipation of sentence context on target words. In the context of the semantic incongruence of Chinese sentences—that is, when the context is equivalent and low in anticipation of the target noun—CD effects were found on late processing indicators of the eye movement data of parafoveal words, and the CD feature of parafoveal words led to a significant parafoveal-on-foveal effect. However, none of these results were found in the semantically reasonable (semantic congruence) context. The results suggested that high CD words are better at adapting to unexposed or learned contexts, which was not the case for high WF words.

Keywords

contextual diversity / parafovea / semantic incongruence / word frequency / word recognition

References

[1] Adelman, J. S., Brown, G. D. A., & Quesada, J. F. (2006). Contextual diversity, not word frequency, determines word-naming and lexical decision times. Psychological Science, 17(9), 814–823.

[2] Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412.

[3] Barber, H. A., van der Meij, M., & Kutas, M. (2012). An electrophysiological analysis of contextual and temporal constraints on parafoveal word processing. Psychophysiology, 50(1), 48–59.

[4] Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278.

[5] Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.

[6] Becker, C. A. (1979). Semantic context and word frequency effects in visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5(2), 252–259.

[7] Brysbaert, M. (2019). How many words do we read per minute? A review and meta-analysis of reading rate. Journal of Memory and Language, 109, 104047.

[8] Brysbaert, M., Mandera, P., & Keuleers, E. (2017). The word frequency effect in word processing: An updated review. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(1), 45–50.

[9] Cai, Q., & Brysbaert, M. (2010). SUBTLEX-CH: Chinese word and character frequencies based on film subtitles. PLoS One, 5(6), e10729.

[10] Chen, Q., Zhao, G., Huang, X., Yang, Y., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2017). The effect of character contextual diversity on eye movements in Chinese sentence reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(6), 1971–1979.

[11] Dennis, S., & Humphreys, M. S. (2001). A context noise model of episodic word recognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 452–478.

[12] Dimitropoulou, M., Duñabeitia, J. A., Avilés, A., Corral, J., & Carreiras, M. (2010). Subtitle-based word frequencies as the best estimate of reading behavior: The case of Greek. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 00218.

[13] Federmeier, K. D., Kutas, M., & Schul, R. (2010). Age-related and individual differences in the use of prediction during language comprehension. Brain and Language, 115(3), 149–161.

[14] Forster, K. I., & Chambers, S. M. (1973). Lexical access and naming time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12(6), 627–635.

[15] Gaston, P., Brodbeck, C., Phillips, C., & Lau, E. (2023). Auditory word comprehension is less incremental in isolated words. Neurobiology of Language (Cambridge, Mass.), 4, 29–52.

[16] Grainger, J., & Jacobs, A. M. (1996). Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple read-out model. Psychological Review, 103(3), 518–565.

[17] Hoffman, P., Lambon Ralph, M. A., & Rogers, T. T. (2012). Semantic diversity: A measure of semantic ambiguity based on variability in the contextual usage of words. Behavior Research Methods, 45(3), 718–730.

[18] Huang, X., Lin, D., Yang, Y., Xu, Y., Chen, Q., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2020). Effects of character and word contextual diversity in Chinese beginning readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 25(3), 251–271.

[19] Jones, M. N., Johns, B. T., & Recchia, G. (2012). The role of semantic diversity in lexical organization. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(2), 115–124.

[20] Joordens, S., & Hockley, W. E. (2000). Recollection and familiarity through the looking glass: When old does not mirror new. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, 26(6), 1534–1555.

[21] Juhasz, B. J., & Rayner, K. (2003). Investigating the effects of a set of intercorrelated variables on eye fixation durations in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(6), 1312–1318.

[22] Kennedy, A., Pynte, J., & Ducrot, S. (2002). Parafoveal-on-foveal interactions in word recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 55(4), 1307–1337.

[23] Li, N., Niefind, F., Wang, S., Sommer, W., & Dimigen, O. (2015). Parafoveal processing in reading Chinese sentences: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Psychophysiology, 52(10), 1361–1374.

[24] Matuschek, H., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., Baayen, H., & Bates, D. (2017). Balancing type I error and power in linear mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 305–315.

[25] Mendes, P. S., Luna, K., & Albuquerque, P. B. (2019). Word frequency effects on judgments of learning: More than just beliefs. The Journal of General Psychology, 148, 1–25.

[26] Murray, W. S., & Rowan, M. (1998). Early, mandatory, pragmatic processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 1–22.

[27] Paap, K. R., Newsome, S. L., McDonald, J. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1982). An activation–verification model for letter and word recognition: The word-superiority effect. Psychological Review, 89(5), 573–594.

[28] Parmentier, F. B. R., Comesaña, M., & Soares, A. P. (2017). Disentangling the effects of word frequency and contextual diversity on serial recall performance. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(1), 1–17.

[29] Perea, M., Soares, A. P., & Comesaña, M. (2013). Contextual diversity is a main determinant of word identification times in young readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(1), 37–44.

[30] Pickering, M. J., & Frisson, S. (2001). Processing ambiguous verbs: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(2), 556–573.

[31] Plummer, P., Perea, M., & Rayner, K. (2014). The influence of contextual diversity on eye movements in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(1), 275–283.

[32] Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422.

[33] Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1457–1506.

[34] Rayner, K., & Raney, G. E. (1996). Eye movement control in reading and visual search: Effects of word frequency. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 3(2), 245–248.

[35] Savin, H. B. (1963). Word-frequency effect and errors in the perception of speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 35(2), 200–206.

[36] Shu, H., Meng, X., Chen, X., Luan, H., & Cao, F. (2005). The subtypes of developmental dyslexia in Chinese: Evidence from three cases. Dyslexia, 11(4), 311–329.

[37] Soares, A. P., Machado, J., Costa, A., Iriarte, Á., Simões, A., de Almeida, J. J., Comesaña, M., & Perea, M. (2015). On the advantages of word frequency and contextual diversity measures extracted from subtitles: The case of Portuguese. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(4), 680–696.

[38] Solomon, R. L., & Howes, D. H. (1951). Word frequency, personal values, and visual duration thresholds. Psychological Review, 58(4), 256–270.

[39] Steyvers, M., & Griffiths, T. (2007). Probabilistic topic models. In T. K. Landauer, D. S. McNamara, S. Dennis, & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Handbook of latent semantic analysis (pp. 439–460). Psychology Press.

[40] Vergara-Martínez, M., Comesaña, M., & Perea, M. (2017). The ERP signature of the contextual diversity effect in visual word recognition. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 17(3), 461–474.

[41] Vergara-Martínez, M., & Swaab, T. Y. (2012). Orthographic neighborhood effects as a function of word frequency: An event-related potential study. Psychophysiology, 49(9), 1277–1289.

[42] Zhang, W., Li, N., Guan, S., & Wang, S. (2014). Extraction of semantic information from parafoveal words in the reading of chinese: An ERPs study. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 46(9), 1261–1270. (in Chinese).

[43] Zhang, W., Zhen, A., Liang, B., & Mo, L. (2019). The parallel mechanism of semantic context influences and parafoveal word identification. Neuroscience Letters, 704, 73–74.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2023 The Authors. PsyCh Journal published by Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.