Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T11:49:30.655Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Processing words and Short Message Service shortcuts in sentential contexts: An eye movement study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 October 2011

LESYA Y. GANUSHCHAK ,
ANDREA KROTT ,
STEVEN FRISSON  and
ANTJE S. MEYER
LESYA Y. GANUSHCHAK*
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen
ANDREA KROTT
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
STEVEN FRISSON
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
ANTJE S. MEYER
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Lesya Ganushchak, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Postbus 310, NL 6500 AH Nijmegen, The Netherlands. E-mail: lganushchak@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study investigated whether Short Message Service shortcuts are more difficult to process in sentence context than the spelled-out word equivalent and, if so, how any additional processing difficulty arises. Twenty-four student participants read 37 Short Message Service shortcuts and word equivalents embedded in semantically plausible and implausible contexts (e.g., He left/drank u/you a note) while their eye movements were recorded. There were effects of plausibility and spelling on early measures of processing difficulty (first fixation durations, gaze durations, skipping, and first-pass regression rates for the targets), but there were no interactions of plausibility and spelling. Late measures of processing difficulty (second run gaze duration and total fixation duration) were only affected by plausibility but not by spelling. These results suggest that shortcuts are harder to recognize, but that, once recognized, they are integrated into the sentence context as easily as ordinary words.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , January 2013 , pp. 163 - 179
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Balota, D. A., Pilotti, M., & Cortese, M. J. (2001). Subjective frequency estimates for 2,938 monosyllabic words. Memory and Cognition, 29, 639–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balota, D., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (1985). The interaction of contextual constraints and parafoveal visual information in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 364–390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brysbaert, M., Drieghe, D., & Vitu, F. (2005). Word skipping: Implications for theories of eye movement control in reading. In Underwood, G. (Ed.), Cognitive processes in eye guidance (pp. 53–77). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brysbaert, M., Speybroeck, S., & Vanderelst, D. (2009). Is there room for the BBC in the mental lexicon? On the recognition of acronyms. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1, 1–11.Google Scholar
Brysbaert, M., & Vitu, F. (1998). Word skipping: Implications for theories of eye movement control in reading. In Underwood, G. (Ed.), Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 125–148). Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleland, A. A., Gaskell, M. G., Quinlan, P. T., & Tamminen, J. (2006). Frequency effects in spoken and visual word recognition: Evidence from dual-task methodologies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 104–119.Google ScholarPubMed
Clifton, C. Jr., Staub, A., & Rayner, K. (2007). Eye movements in reading words and sentences. In van Gompel, R. P. G., Fischer, M. H., Murray, W. S., & Hill, R. L. (Eds.), Eye movements: A window on mind and brain (pp. 341–373). Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coltheart, M., Rastle, M., Perry, C., Ziegler, J., & Langdon, R. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108, 204–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crystal, D. (2008). Txtng. The Gr8 Db8. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Drieghe, D., Brysbaert, M., Desmet, T., & De Baecke, C. (2004). Word skipping in reading: On the interplay of linguistic and visual factors. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 79–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drieghe, D., Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2005). Eye movements and word skipping during reading revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 954–959.Google ScholarPubMed
Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. J. (1999). The processing of metonymy: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1366–1383.Google ScholarPubMed
Ganushchak, L. Y., Krott, A., & Meyer, A. S. (2010a). Electroencephalographic responses to SMS shortcuts. Brain Research, 1348, 120–127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ganushchak, L. Y., Krott, A., & Meyer, A. S. (2010b). Is it a letter? Is it a number? Processing of numbers within SMS shortcuts. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 17, 101–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haberlandt, K. F., & Graesser, A. C. (1985). Component processing in text comprehension and some of their interactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 357–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, J. M., & Ferreira, F. (1993). Eye movement control during reading: fixation measures reflect foveal but not parafoveal processing difficulty. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 201–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kintsch, W. (1994). The psychology of discourse processing. In Kintsch, W. & Gernsbacher, M. A. (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 721–739). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lien, M. C., Allen, P. A., Ruthruff, E., Grabbe, J., McCann, R. S., & Remington, R. W. (2006). Visual word recognition without central attention: Evidence for greater automaticity with advancing age. Psychology and Aging, 21, 431–447.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lima, S. D., & Inhoff, A. W. (1985). Lexical access during eye fixations in reading: Effects of word initial letter sequence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 272–285.Google ScholarPubMed
McDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyake, A., Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (1994). A capacity approach to syntactic comprehension disorder: Making normal adults perform like aphasic patients. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 11, 671–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyake, A., Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1994). Working memory constraints on the resolution of lexical ambiguity: Maintaining multiple interpretations in neutral contexts. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 175–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otten, M., & van Berkum, J. J. A. (2009). Does working memory capacity affect the ability to predict upcoming words in discourse? Brain Research, 1291, 92–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perea, M., Acha, J., & Carreiras, M. (2009). Eye movements when reading text messaging (txt msgng). Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1560–1567.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (1998). Plausibility and recovery from garden paths: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 24, 7278–7393.Google Scholar
Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. K., Seidenberg, M. S., & Patterson, K. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domain. Psychological Review, 103, 56–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollatsek, A., Reichle, E. D., & Rayner, K. (2003). Modeling eye movements in reading: Extensions of the E-Z Reader model. In Hyönä, J., Radach, R., & Deubel, H. (Eds.), The mind's eye: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research (pp. 361–390). Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rastle, K. (2007). Visual word recognition. In Gaskell, M. G. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 71–87). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movement in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rayner, K., Ashby, J., Pollatsek, A., & Reichle, E. D. (2004). The effects of frequency and predictability on eye fixations in reading: Implications for the E-Z Reader model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 720–732.Google ScholarPubMed
Rayner, K., Fischer, M. H., & Pollatsek, A. (1998). Unspaced text interferes with both word identification and eye movement control. Vision Research, 38, 1129–1144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rayner, K., & McConkie, G. W. (1976). What guides a reader's eye movements? Vision Research, 16, 829–837.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rayner, K., Sereno, S. C., & Raney, G. R. (1996). Eye movement control in reading: A comparison of two types of models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1188–1200.Google Scholar
Rayner, K., Warren, T., Juhasz, B. J., & Liversedge, S. P. (2004). The effect of plausibility on eye movements in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 1290–1301.Google ScholarPubMed
Rayner, K., White, S. J., Johnson, S. P., & Liversedge, S. P. (2006). Raeding words with jubmled lettres: There is a cost. Psychological Science, 17, 192–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, M., & Besner, D. (2006). Reading aloud is not automatic: Processing capacity is required to generate a phonological code from print. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 1302–1323.Google Scholar
Sereno, S. C., Brewer, C. C., & O'Donnell, P. J. (2003). Context effects in word recognition: Evidence for early interactive processing. Psychological Science, 14, 328–333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singer, M. (2007). Inference processing in discourse comprehension. In Gaskell, M. G. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 343–359). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Staub, A., Rayner, K., Pollatsek, A., Hyönä, J., & Majewski, H. (2007). The time course of plausibility effects on eye movements in reading: Evidence from noun–noun compounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 1162–1169.Google ScholarPubMed
Sturt, P. (2007). Semantic re-interpretation and garden path recovery. Cognition, 105, 477–488.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tabor, W., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1999). Dynamical models of sentence processing. Cognitive Science, 23, 491–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Gompel, R. P. G., & Pickering, M. J. (2007). Syntactic parsing. In Gaskell, M. G. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 289–307). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vitu, F. (1991). The influence of parafoveal processing and linguistic context on the optimal landing position effect. Perception and Psychophysics, 50, 58–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, T., McConnell, K., & Rayner, K. (2008). Effects of context on eye movements when reading about possible and impossible events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 1001–1010.Google ScholarPubMed
White, S. J. (2008). Eye movement control during reading: Effects of word frequency and orthographic familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 205–223.Google ScholarPubMed
White, S. J., Rayner, K., & Liversedge, S. P. (2005). Eye movements and the modulation of parafoveal processing by foveal processing difficulty: A re-examination. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12, 891–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar