Prediction at the intersection of sentence context and word form: Evidence from eye-movements and self-paced reading

Prediction in reading: A review of predictability effects, their theoretical implications, and beyond

Historically, prediction during reading has been considered an inefficient and cognitively expensive processing mechanism given the inherently generative nature of language, which allows upcoming text to unfold in an infinite number of possible ways. This article provides an accessible and comprehensive review of the psycholinguistic research that, over the past 40 or so years, has investigated whether readers are capable of generating predictions during reading, typically via experiments on the effects of predictability (i.e., how well a word can be predicted from its prior context). Five theoretically important issues are addressed: What is the best measure of predictability? What is the functional relationship between predictability and processing difficulty? What stage(s) of processing does predictability affect? Are predictability effects ubiquitous? What processes do predictability effects actually reflect? Insights from computational models of reading about how predictability manifests itself to facilitate the reading of text are also discussed. This review concludes by arguing that effects of predictability can, to a certain extent, be taken as demonstrating evidence that prediction is an important but flexible component of real-time language comprehension, in line with broader predictive accounts of cognitive functioning. However, converging evidence, especially from concurrent eye-tracking and brain-imaging methods, is necessary to refine theories of prediction.

Cloze probability, predictability ratings, and computational estimates for 205 English sentences, aligned with existing EEG and reading time data

We release a database of cloze probability values, predictability ratings, and computational estimates for a sample of 205 English sentences (1726 words), aligned with previously released word-by-word reading time data (both self-paced reading and eye-movement records; Frank et al., Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1182-1190. 2013) and EEG responses (Frank et al., Brain and Language, 140, 1-11. 2015). Our analyses show that predictability ratings are the best predictors of the EEG signal (N400, P600, LAN) self-paced reading times, and eye movement patterns, when spillover effects are taken into account. The computational estimates are particularly effective at explaining variance in the eye-tracking data without spillover. Cloze probability estimates have decent overall psychometric accuracy and are the best predictors of early fixation patterns (first fixation duration). Our results indicate that the choice of the best measurement of word predictability in context critically depends on the processing index being considered.

No, Bionic Reading does not work

It has recently been claimed that presenting text with the first half of each word printed in bold (as is done in this example), so-called Bionic Reading, facilitates reading. However, empirical tests of this claim are lacking, and theoretically one might expect a cost rather than a benefit. Here I tested participants' reading speed of 100 paragraphs that were presented either in 'Bionic' or in normal font. Statistical analyses revealed no significant difference in reading times between Bionic and normal reading. I conclude that Bionic Reading does not facilitate reading.

Systematic mappings of sound to meaning: A theoretical review

The form of a word sometimes conveys semantic information. For example, the iconic word gurgle sounds like what it means, and busy is easy to identify as an English adjective because it ends in -y. Such links between form and meaning matter because they help people learn and use language. But gurgle also sounds like gargle and burble, and the -y in busy is morphologically and etymologically unrelated to the -y in crazy and watery. Whatever processing effects gurgle and busy have in common likely stem not from iconic, morphological, or etymological relationships but from systematicity more broadly: the phenomenon whereby semantically related words share a phonological or orthographic feature. In this review, we evaluate corpus evidence that spoken languages are systematic (even when controlling for iconicity, morphology, and etymology) and experimental evidence that systematicity impacts word processing (even in lieu of iconic, morphological, and etymological relationships). We conclude by drawing attention to the relationship between systematicity and low-frequency words and, consequently, the role that systematicity plays in natural language processing.

The metrics of reading speed: understanding developmental dyslexia

We compared reading words and pseudo-words presented in single displays (as typical of psycholinguistic research) with stimuli presented in multiple displays (as typical of real-life conditions and clinical testing) under controlled conditions. Italian sixth-grade children with and without a reading deficit showed an advantage in reading times for multiple over single displays. This finding was partly ascribed to the capacity to overlap the non-decisional component of the response, an effect present in control readers as well as children with dyslexia. Furthermore, there were several indications in the data that the requirement to read sequentially taxes performance by augmenting the relative impact of the experimental manipulations used. This effect was present in both groups of children, but proportionally stronger in children with dyslexia. The study contributes to filling the gap between single and multiple displays, a condition more like real-life situations.