Abstract
The present study examined the influence of perspective instructions on online processing of expository text during repeated reading. Sixty-two participants read either a high or a low prior knowledge (HPK vs. LPK) text twice from a given perspective while their eye movements were recorded. They switched perspective before a third reading. Reading perspective affected the first-pass reading and also increased sentence wrap-up processing time in the perspective-relevant sentences. Prior knowledge facilitated the recognition of the (ir)relevance of text information and resulted in relatively earlier perspective effects in the HPK versus LPK text. Repeated reading facilitated processing, as indicated by all eye movement measures. After the perspective switch, a repetition benefit was observed for the previously relevant text information, whereas a repetition cost was found for the previously irrelevant text information. These results indicate that reading perspective and prior knowledge have a significant influence on how readers allocate visual attention during reading.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Anderson, R. C. (1982). Allocation of attention during reading. In A. Flammer & W. Kintsch (Eds.),Discourse processing (pp. 292–305). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Anderson, R. C., &Pichert J. W. (1978). Recall of previously unrecallable information following a shift in perspective.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,17, 1–12.
Anderson, R. C., Pichert, J. W., &Shirey, L. L. (1983). Effects of the reader’s schema at different points in time.Journal of Educational Psychology,75, 271–279.
Baillet, S. D., &Keenan, J. M. (1986). The role of encoding and retrieval processes in the recall of text.Discourse Processes,9, 247–268.
Blanchard, H. E., &Iran-Nejad, A. (1987). Comprehension processes and eye movement patterns in the reading of surprise-ending stories.Discourse Processes,10, 127–138.
Engbert, R., Longtin, A., &Kliegl, R. (2002). A dynamical model of saccade generation in reading based on spatially distributed processing.Vision Research,42, 621–636.
Ericsson, K. A., &Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory.Psychological Review,102, 211–245.
Goetz, E. T., Schallert, D. L., Reynolds, R. E., &Radin, D. I. (1983). Reading in perspective: What real cops and pretend burglars look for in a story.Journal of Educational Psychology,75, 500–510.
Hyönä, J. (1995). An eye movement analysis of topic-shift effect during repeated reading.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 1365–1373.
Hyönä, J., &Niemi, P. (1990). Eye movements during repeated reading of a text.Acta Psychologica,73, 259–280.
Just, M. A., &Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension.Psychological Review,87, 329–354.
Kaakinen, J. K., &Hyönä, J. (2005). Perspective effects on expository text comprehension: Evidence from think-aloud protocols, eyetracking and recall.Discourse Processes,40, 239–257.
Kaakinen, J. K., & Hyönä, J. (in press). Perspective-driven text comprehension.Applied Cognitive Psychology.
Kaakinen, J. K., Hyönä, J., &Keenan, J. M. (2001). Individual differences in perspective effects on text memory.Current Psychology Letters: Behaviour, Brain & Cognition,5, 21–32.
Kaakinen, J. K., Hyönä, J., &Keenan, J. M. (2002). Perspective effects on on-line text processing.Discourse Processes,33, 159–173.
Kaakinen, J. K., Hyönä, J., &Keenan, J. M. (2003). How prior knowledge, WMC, and relevance of information affect eye fixations in expository text.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,29, 447–457.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model.Psychological Review,95, 163–182.
Kintsch, W. (1998).Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kintsch, W., &Franzke, M. (1995). The role of background knowledge in the recall of a news story. In R. F. Lorch & E. J. O’Brien (Eds.),Sources of coherence in reading (pp. 321–333). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kintsch, W., Patel, V. L., &Ericsson, K. A. (1999). The role of longterm working memory in text comprehension.International Journal of Psychology in the Orient,42, 186–198.
Laine, M., &Virtanen, P. (1999).WordMill Lexical Search Program. Turku, Finland: University of Turku, Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience.
Levy, B. A., Campsall, J., Browne, J., Cooper, D., Waterhouse, C., &Wilson, C. (1995). Reading fluency: Episodic integration across texts.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 1169–1185.
Levy, B. A., &Kirsner, K. (1989). Reprocessing text: Indirect measures of word and message level processes.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 407–417
McNamara, D. S., &Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence.Discourse Processes,22, 247–288.
Millis, K. K., &King, A. (2001). Rereading strategically: The influences of comprehension ability and a prior reading on the memory for expository text.Reading Psychology,22, 41–65.
Millis, K. K., King, A, &Kim, H. J. (2000). Updating situation models from descriptive texts: A test of the situational operator model.Discourse Processes,30, 201–236.
Millis, K. K., &Simon, S. (1994). Rereading scientific texts: Changes in resource allocation. In H. van Oostendorp & R. A. Zwaan (Eds.)Naturalistic text comprehension (pp. 115–133). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Millis, K. K., Simon, S., &tenBroek, N. S. (1998). Resource allocation during the rereading of scientific texts.Memory & Cognition,26, 232–246.
Moravcsik, J. E., &Kintsch, W. (1995). Writing quality, reading skills, and domain knowledge as factors in text comprehension. In J. M. Henderson, M. Singer, & F. Ferreira (Eds.),Reading and language processing (pp. 232–246). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pichert, J. W., &Anderson, R. C. (1977). Taking different perspectives on a story.Journal of Educational Psychology,69, 309–315.
Raney, G. E. (2003). A context-dependent representation model for explaining text repetition effects.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,10, 15–28.
Rayner, K., Kambe, G., &Duffy, S. A. (2000). The effect of clause wrap-up on eye movements during reading.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,53A, 1061–1080.
Reichle, E. D., Rayner, K., &Pollatsek, A. (2003). The E-Z Reader model of eye movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,26, 445–526.
Shebilske, W. L., &Fisher, D. F. (1981). Eye movements reveal components of flexible reading strategies. In M. L. Kamil (Ed.),30th yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 51–56). Washington, DC: The National Reading Conference.
Stine-Morrow, E. A. L., Gagne, D. D., Morrow, D. G., &DeWall, B. H. (2004). Age differences in rereading.Memory & Cognition,32, 696–710.
van den Broek, P., Risden, K., &Husebye-Hartmann, E. (1995). The role of readers’ standards for coherence in the generation of inferences during reading. In R. F. Lorch, Jr., & E. J. O’Brien (Eds.),Sources of coherence in text comprehension (pp. 353–373). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Voss, J. F., &Silfies, L. N. (1996). Learning from history text: The interaction of knowledge and comprehension skill with text structure.Cognition & Instruction,14, 45–68.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kaakinen, J.K., Hyönä, J. Perspective effects in repeated reading: An eye movement study. Memory & Cognition 35, 1323–1336 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193604
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193604