TY - JOUR
T1 - Task effects reveal cognitive flexibility responding to frequency and predictability
T2 - Evidence from eye movements in reading and proofreading
AU - Schotter, Elizabeth R.
AU - Bicknell, Klinton
AU - Howard, Ian
AU - Levy, Roger
AU - Rayner, Keith
N1 - Funding Information:
This research was supported by Grant HD065829 and training Grant DC000041 from the National Institutes of Health as well as Grant IIS0953870 from the National Science Foundation. Portions of these data were presented at the CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing (2012; New York, NY) and the Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society (2012; Minneapolis, MN). We thank Gerry Altmann, Reinhold Kliegl, Wayne Murray, and an anonymous reviewer for their comments on an earlier version.
PY - 2014/4
Y1 - 2014/4
N2 - It is well-known that word frequency and predictability affect processing time. These effects change magnitude across tasks, but studies testing this use tasks with different response types (e.g., lexical decision, naming, and fixation time during reading; Schilling, Rayner, & Chumbley, 1998), preventing direct comparison. Recently, Kaakinen and Hyönä (2010) overcame this problem, comparing fixation times in reading for comprehension and proofreading, showing that the frequency effect was larger in proofreading than in reading. This result could be explained by readers exhibiting substantial cognitive flexibility, and qualitatively changing how they process words in the proofreading task in a way that magnifies effects of word frequency. Alternatively, readers may not change word processing so dramatically, and instead may perform more careful identification generally, increasing the magnitude of many word processing effects (e.g., both frequency and predictability). We tested these possibilities with two experiments: subjects read for comprehension and then proofread for spelling errors (letter transpositions) that produce nonwords (e.g., trcak for track as in Kaakinen & Hyönä) or that produce real but unintended words (e.g., trial for trail) to compare how the task changes these effects. Replicating Kaakinen and Hyönä, frequency effects increased during proofreading. However, predictability effects only increased when integration with the sentence context was necessary to detect errors (i.e., when spelling errors produced words that were inappropriate in the sentence; trial for trail). The results suggest that readers adopt sophisticated word processing strategies to accommodate task demands.
AB - It is well-known that word frequency and predictability affect processing time. These effects change magnitude across tasks, but studies testing this use tasks with different response types (e.g., lexical decision, naming, and fixation time during reading; Schilling, Rayner, & Chumbley, 1998), preventing direct comparison. Recently, Kaakinen and Hyönä (2010) overcame this problem, comparing fixation times in reading for comprehension and proofreading, showing that the frequency effect was larger in proofreading than in reading. This result could be explained by readers exhibiting substantial cognitive flexibility, and qualitatively changing how they process words in the proofreading task in a way that magnifies effects of word frequency. Alternatively, readers may not change word processing so dramatically, and instead may perform more careful identification generally, increasing the magnitude of many word processing effects (e.g., both frequency and predictability). We tested these possibilities with two experiments: subjects read for comprehension and then proofread for spelling errors (letter transpositions) that produce nonwords (e.g., trcak for track as in Kaakinen & Hyönä) or that produce real but unintended words (e.g., trial for trail) to compare how the task changes these effects. Replicating Kaakinen and Hyönä, frequency effects increased during proofreading. However, predictability effects only increased when integration with the sentence context was necessary to detect errors (i.e., when spelling errors produced words that were inappropriate in the sentence; trial for trail). The results suggest that readers adopt sophisticated word processing strategies to accommodate task demands.
KW - Eye movements
KW - Frequency
KW - Predictability
KW - Reading
KW - Task effects
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84892467283&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84892467283&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.018
DO - 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.018
M3 - Article
C2 - 24434024
AN - SCOPUS:84892467283
SN - 0010-0277
VL - 131
SP - 1
EP - 27
JO - Cognition
JF - Cognition
IS - 1
ER -