基于语境的因果性预期推理的构建的实验研究

实验一探讨对因果性预期推理的支持程度不同的语境对因果性预期推理的即时构建的影响。结果表明,如果文本信息有支持预期结果的语境,读者会即时进行因果性预期推理。实验二探讨当文本描述了两个不能整合的情境模型时因果性预期推理的即时构建情况。结果表明,在这种条件下,因果性预期推理不会即时产生。本研究结果表明,文本的语境对因果性结果的支持程度对因果性预期推理的即时构建有决定性的影响作用。     

文本阅读中预期推理激活与编码的语境条件研究

本研究通过三个实验考察了语义联系和因果制约对文本阅读中预期推理激活和编码的贡献。结果表明,预期语境与预期事件间的语义联系不能使预期推理在文本阅读过程中得到激活和编码,语境与预期事件间的强因果关系是文本阅读过程中预期推理激活与编码的必要条件;提示阅读过程中的预期是因果预期而非联想预期。结果为建构主义推理观提供了实验依据。     

文本阅读过程中目标焦点的预期推理

探讨文本阅读过程中目标焦点是否引起即时的预期推理。采用移动窗口技术,让被试阅读16篇含有目标信息的记叙文。实验1和实验2探讨已进入长时记忆中的尚未实现的目标是否作为阅读的焦点对阅读目标行为进行预期推理。实验3探讨已经实现的目标是否作为阅读的焦点对阅读目标行为产生预期作用。实验结果表明,对目标的预期推理是可以即时发生的,在目标未实现的情况下,读者会对目标信息进行预期推理;在目标已经实现的情况下,读者对有关目标的信息不产生预期推理。     

文本阅读中简单推理情境下的信息整合

研究采用动窗技术探讨了文本阅读中需要简单推理情境下的信息整合发生的时机。本研究通过三个实验证明了在需要简单推理情境下的文本阅读中 ,需要推理的信息整合是即时发生的 ,而不是经过追溯才发生 ,在这种情况下支持文本阅读的更新追随假设理论。同时本研究发现文本阅读中协调性整合不是以词为单位的。     

说明文阅读中局部连贯因果推理的产生

探讨熟悉主题的说明文阅读过程中维持局部连贯的因果推理的产生问题。3个实验分别采用了不同的实验材料, 实验1的文本提供明确的前提信息, 实验2的材料提供隐含的前提信息, 实验3的材料在前提信息与结论信息之间插入了其他信息。总的结果表明, 熟悉主题的说明文阅读过程中, 当文本提供的前提信息与结论信息一起呈现时, 无论提供明确的还是隐含的前提信息, 实现文本局部因果连贯的推理能够即时产生; 当前提信息相隔2个句子后, 虽然读者还是可以产生因果推理检测到与推理内容矛盾的信息, 但是这种检测敏感度大有降低。基于本研究结果, 结合相关研究, 本文尝试提出关于文本阅读中推理产生的“认知代价”观, 试图整合文本推理理论。     

文本阅读中信息精确化推理的初步研究

采用动窗技术对文本阅读中信息精确化推理进行了初步研究。实验1研究在工作记忆范围内,信息精确化推理是即时发生的还是当局部信息不连贯时再重新追溯才发生。实验2探究信息精确化推理在长时记忆中是否也会发生。结果表明,文本阅读中的信息精确化推理,不管需要进行精确化推理的句子与包含推理所需信息的句子是处于同一工作记忆范围内,还是处于长时记忆中,推理都是即时发生的。     

文本阅读中情境模型建构和更新的机制

采用移动窗口阅读技术探讨了文本阅读中情境模型建构和更新的机制。实验材料按照特征描述与目标行为 的关系总体上分为可能、不可能和重新可能三个版本。实验1主要探讨了文章开始部分有明显的焦点信息时情境模 型建构和更新的机制,检验了更新追随假设的合理性;实验2主要探讨了文章开始部分没有明显的焦点信息时情境 模型建构和更新的机制,检验了记忆基础文本加工理论的合理性;实验3使用再认探测任务,进一步检验了更新追 随假设和记忆基础文本加工理论的差异。实验结果表明,文本阅读中情境模型的建构和更新是一个双加工过程,在 自然阅读过程中,读者根据所阅读的信息不同会产生不同的信息加工活动,既会有记忆基础文本加工理论所支持的 协调性整合,也会有建构主义的更新追随假设所支持的焦点整合     

预期推理在长时记忆中的表征形式

该研究采用移动窗口技术,通过两个实验研究探讨在高低不同竞争条件下预期推理结果在长时记忆中的表征形式。实验结果表明,预期推理在长时记忆中的表征形式依赖于文本中预期推理的引发语境,在不同竞争强度的预期语境中,预期推理的结果在长时记忆会以不同的形式进行表征。在低竞争条件下,预期推理的结果以确定的形式表征;只有在高竞争条件下,预期推理的结果才会以假定的形式进行表征。     

现实预期和意愿预期在文本阅读中的激活强度

文本阅读中,读者往往对事件的后续发展进行预期推理。预期推理有两种倾向,要么是倾向于根据客观现实条件进行的现实预期,要么是倾向于根据主观个人意愿进行的意愿预期。两个实验探讨了文本阅读中读者产生的现实预期和意愿预期的激活强度。结果发现,现实预期和意愿预期都可以在阅读中即时产生,意愿预期强于现实预期;把读者分为"情感导向型"和"非情感导向型",发现"情感导向型"的读者,阅读过程中产生的意愿预期强于现实预期,而"非情感导向型"的读者则不是。     

现实预期与意愿预期在文本阅读中的保持

文本阅读中, 读者往往对事件的后续发展进行预期推理。预期推理有两种倾向, 要么是倾向于根据客观现实条件进行的现实预期, 要么是倾向于根据主观的个人意愿进行的意愿预期。3个实验通过自定步调阅读范式探讨了文本阅读中读者产生的现实预期和意愿预期的保持。结果发现, 现实预期和意愿预期在长时记忆中的保持情况差异明显, 现实预期不能在长时记忆中保持, 而意愿预期则能保持; 但意愿预期也不能单独存在, 会受到现实条件的制约, 在受到现实否定后即时消退, 不再影响读者的进一步阅读。     

Elaborative inferences during reading: do they occur on-line?

Four experiments were conducted to examine the extent to which readers construct elaborative inferences on-line during reading. In Experiment 1, gaze durations were measured while subjects read anaphors to target antecedents that referenced a particular category member either explicitly or implicitly. When the context strongly suggested a particular category member, gaze durations on an anaphor were the same following either an implicit or an explicit antecedent. When the context did not suggest any particular category member, gaze durations were significantly longer following an implicit antecedent. The results confirmed that, with sufficient context, readers will generate a simple elaborative inference on-line. These results were replicated in Experiment 2 in which the materials did not strongly signal the inference but a sentence designed to encourage subjects to infer was included. In Experiment 3, this "demand sentence" was not included, and readers did not appear to construct the targeted inference. The results of Experiment 4 confirmed that once generated, elaborative inferences are stored as part of the long-term-memory representation of a passage.     

Hemispheric processing of inferences: The effects of textual constraint and working memory capacity

In this study, we investigated hemispheric differences in the generation of bridging and predictive inferences. Participants read texts that provided either strong or weak causal constraints for a particular bridging (Experiment 1) or predictive (Experiment 2) inference and performed a lexical decision task to inference-related targets presented to the left or the right hemisphere. Facilitation for strongly constrained bridging and predictive inferences was found in both hemispheres. In contrast, facilitation for weakly constrained inferences was stronger in the right than in the left hemisphere for both bridging and predictive inferences, although for the latter there was some facilitation in the left hemisphere as well. We also considered whether these effects differ as a function of the working memory capacity of the reader. High working memory capacity readers showed greater facilitation for strongly constrained inferences than for weakly constrained inferences in both hemispheres, whereas low working memory capacity readers showed this same pattern in the left hemisphere but showed equal facilitation for strongly and weakly constrained inferences in the right hemisphere. These results suggest that hemispheric processing, textual constraint, and working memory capacity interact to affect how readers generate causal inferences.     

Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity

Connectives are text devices that signal the relation between adjacent sentences. Recently there has been a surge of research interest in the role played by connectives in on-line processing. The present research tested the hypothesis that connectives will impact on-line processing to the extent that they signal a text event that represents a departure from the continuity of the events stated in the text. In Experiment 1, participants generated sentences to follow a stimulus sentence. An additive, causal, or adversative connective (or no connective) was provided to serve as the first word of the participants’ sentence. Results showed that sentences generated in response to additive or causal connectives depicted text events that were continuous with the stimulus text. In contrast, sentences generated in response to adversative connectives depicted discontinuous text events. In Experiments 2 and 3, participants read coherent sentence pairs containing inappropriately placed additive, causal, or adversative connectives. Support for the continuity hypothesis was found when it was shown that adversative connectives led to the greatest amount of processing disruption, as measured by longer reading time on the postconnective sentence (Experiment 2) and lower ratings of coherence (Experiment 3). Future research in this area is discussed.     

On-line predictive inferences in reading: Processing timeduring versusafter the priming context

Prior research suggests that predictive inferences take time to construct on-line. The present study examines the relative contribution of time available during and after reading an inducing context. In six experiments, we manipulated the presentation rate of the context and the delay between the onset of the last word in the context and a target word. A predicting, or a control, sentence context was followed by a target word, which represented the predicted event or an unlikely event. The results indicated that increasing the time available during reading of the context improved comprehension of explicit information, but it did not affect construction of inferences. In contrast, increasing the delay at the end of the context did not affect explicit comprehension, but it enhanced the probability of inferences, as revealed by shorter latencies in naming the predictable target word after the inducing context, relative to the control context. These findings show that readers defer making predictive inferences until 1 sec after the sentence context has been read, regardless of the time available when they are processing the context.     

Do readers make inferences about conversational topics?

When we read that two protagonists in a story chatted together for a couple of minutes, do we draw inferences about the topic of the conversation on the basis of information presented earlier in the text? Participants read passages in which protagonists part and later reunite; the passages ended with a sentence either that implied conversation or did not. In Experiment 1, participants' continuation sentences indicated that inferences about the topic of conversation were drawn. Recognition probe data in Experiment 2 provided more immediate evidence of such inferences. Experiment 3 addressed a possible confound in Experiment 2 and again provided evidence that readers inferred the continuation of the conversation. In Experiments 4 and 5, we investigated the effect of having the targeted conversational topic be a secret that should not be shared between the protagonists. The results are discussed in terms of the collaboration between passive, memory-based text processing and schema-driven comprehension processes.     

The influence of linguistic and cognitive factors on the time course of verb-based implicit causality

In three eye-tracking experiments the influence of the Dutch causal connective “want” (because) and the working memory capacity of readers on the usage of verb-based implicit causality was examined. Experiments 1 and 2 showed that although a causal connective is not required to activate implicit causality information during reading, effects of implicit causality surfaced more rapidly and were more pronounced when a connective was present in the discourse than when it was absent. In addition, Experiment 3 revealed that—in contrast to previous claims—the activation of implicit causality is not a resource-consuming mental operation. Moreover, readers with higher and lower working memory capacities behaved differently in a dual-task situation. Higher span readers were more likely to use implicit causality when they had all their working memory resources at their disposal. Lower span readers showed the opposite pattern as they were more likely to use the implicit causality cue in the case of an additional working memory load. The results emphasize that both linguistic and cognitive factors mediate the impact of implicit causality on text comprehension. The implications of these results are discussed in terms of the ongoing controversies in the literature—that is, the focusing-integration debate and the debates on the source of implicit causality.