Advertisement

The influence of number of syllables on word skipping during reading revisited

  • Denis DriegheEmail author
  • Aaron Veldre
  • Gemma Fitzsimmons
  • Jane Ashby
  • Sally Andrews
Article

Abstract

Fitzsimmons and Drieghe (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 736–741, 2011) showed that a monosyllabic word was skipped more often than a disyllabic word during reading. This finding was interpreted as evidence that syllabic information was extracted from the parafovea early enough to influence word skipping. In the present, large-scale replication of this study, in which we additionally measured the reading, vocabulary, and spelling abilities of the participants, the effect of number of syllables on word skipping was not significant. Moreover, a Bayesian analysis indicated strong evidence for the absence of the effect. The individual differences analyses replicate previous observations showing that spelling ability uniquely predicts word skipping (but not fixation times) because better spellers skip more often. The results indicate that high-quality lexical representations allow the system to reach an advanced stage in the word-recognition process of the parafoveal word early enough to influence the decision of whether or not to skip the word, but this decision is not influenced by number of syllables.

Notes

Open practices statement

Our data and R scripts used for the analyses are available on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/rceut/.

References

  1. Andrews, S. (2012). Individual differences in skilled word recognition and reading: The role of lexical quality. In J. Adelman (Ed.), Visual word recognition (Vol. 2). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  2. Andrews, S., & Hersch, J. (2010). Lexical precision in skilled readers: The role of lexical quality. Individual differences in masked neighbour priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139, 299–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashby, J. (2010). Phonology is fundamental in skilled reading: Evidence from ERPs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 95–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashby, J., & Rayner, K. (2004). Representing syllable information during silent reading: Evidence from eye movements. Language & Cognitive Processes, 19, 391–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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, 255–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, J. I., Fishco, V. V., & Hanna, G. (1993). Nelson-Denny reading test. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.Google Scholar
  8. Chace, K. H., Rayner, K., & Well, A. D. (2005). Eye movements and phonological parafoveal preview: Effects of reading skill. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 209–217.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Fitzsimmons, G., & Drieghe, D. (2011). The influence of number of syllables on word skipping during reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 736–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jared, D., Levy, B. A., & Rayner, K. (1999). The role of phonology in the activation of word meanings during reading: Evidence from proofreading and eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 219–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jared, D., & O’Donnell, K. (2017). Skilled adult readers activate the meanings of high-frequency words using phonology: Evidence from eye tracking. Memory & Cognition, 45, 334–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Morey, R. D., & Rouder, J. N. (2013). Bayesfactor: Computation of Bayes factors for common designs (R Package Version 0.9.12-4.2) [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/BayesFactor/index.html
  13. Perfetti, C. A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pollatsek, A., Lesch, M., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1992). Phonological codes are used in integrating information across saccades in word identification and reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 148–162.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. Vienna, Austria: R foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/
  16. Rayner, K. (1975). The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1457–1506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Reichle, E. D., Pollatsek, A., Fisher, D. L., & Rayner, K. (1998). Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. Psychological Review, 105, 125–157.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Schotter, E. R., Angele, B., & Rayner, K. (2012). Parafoveal processing in reading. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 5–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Slattery, T. J., & Yates, M. (2018). Word Skipping: Effects of word length, predictability, spelling and reading skill. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 250–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tiffin-Richards, S. P., & Schroeder, S. (2015). Children’s and adults’ parafoveal processes in German: Phonological and orthographic effects. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27, 53–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Veldre, A., & Andrews, A. (2015). Parafoveal preview benefit is modulated by the precision of skilled readers’ lexical representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41, 219–232.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Veldre, A., & Andrews, A. (2016). Semantic preview benefit in English: Individual differences in the extraction and use of parafoveal semantic information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42, 837–854.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Veldre, A., Drieghe, D., & Andrews, A. (2017). Spelling ability selectively predicts the magnitude of disruption in unspaced text reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43, 1612–1628.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Denis Drieghe
    • 1
    Email author
  • Aaron Veldre
    • 2
  • Gemma Fitzsimmons
    • 1
  • Jane Ashby
    • 3
  • Sally Andrews
    • 2
  1. 1.School of PsychologyUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
  2. 2.University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Central Michigan UniversityMount PleasantUSA

Personalised recommendations