Column setting and text justification influence return-sweep eye movement behavior during Chinese multi-line reading.

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Cognitive Research-Principles and Implications Pub Date : 2024-06-03 DOI:10.1186/s41235-024-00559-5
Mengsi Wang, Donna E Gill, Jeannie Judge, Chuanli Zang, Xuejun Bai, Simon P Liversedge
{"title":"Column setting and text justification influence return-sweep eye movement behavior during Chinese multi-line reading.","authors":"Mengsi Wang, Donna E Gill, Jeannie Judge, Chuanli Zang, Xuejun Bai, Simon P Liversedge","doi":"10.1186/s41235-024-00559-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>People regularly read multi-line texts in different formats and publishers, internationally, must decide how to present text to make reading most effective and efficient. Relatively few studies have examined multi-line reading, and fewer still Chinese multi-line reading. Here, we examined whether texts presented in single or double columns, and either left-justified or fully-justified affect Chinese reading. Text format had minimal influence on overall reading time; however, it significantly impacted return-sweeps (large saccades moving the eyes from the end of one line of text to the beginning of the next). Return-sweeps were launched and landed further away from margins and involved more corrective saccades in single- than double-column format. For left- compared to fully-justified format, return-sweeps were launched and landed closer to margins. More corrective saccades also occurred. Our results showed more efficient return-sweep behavior for fully- than left-justified text. Moreover, there were clear trade-off effects such that formats requiring increased numbers of shorter return-sweeps produced more accurate targeting and reduced numbers of corrective fixations, whereas formats requiring reduced numbers of longer return-sweeps caused less accurate targeting and an increased rate of corrective fixations. Overall, our results demonstrate that text formats substantially affect return-sweep eye movement behavior during Chinese reading without affecting efficiency and effectiveness, that is, the overall time it takes to read and understand the text.</p>","PeriodicalId":46827,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Research-Principles and Implications","volume":"9 1","pages":"34"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11147972/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Research-Principles and Implications","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-024-00559-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

People regularly read multi-line texts in different formats and publishers, internationally, must decide how to present text to make reading most effective and efficient. Relatively few studies have examined multi-line reading, and fewer still Chinese multi-line reading. Here, we examined whether texts presented in single or double columns, and either left-justified or fully-justified affect Chinese reading. Text format had minimal influence on overall reading time; however, it significantly impacted return-sweeps (large saccades moving the eyes from the end of one line of text to the beginning of the next). Return-sweeps were launched and landed further away from margins and involved more corrective saccades in single- than double-column format. For left- compared to fully-justified format, return-sweeps were launched and landed closer to margins. More corrective saccades also occurred. Our results showed more efficient return-sweep behavior for fully- than left-justified text. Moreover, there were clear trade-off effects such that formats requiring increased numbers of shorter return-sweeps produced more accurate targeting and reduced numbers of corrective fixations, whereas formats requiring reduced numbers of longer return-sweeps caused less accurate targeting and an increased rate of corrective fixations. Overall, our results demonstrate that text formats substantially affect return-sweep eye movement behavior during Chinese reading without affecting efficiency and effectiveness, that is, the overall time it takes to read and understand the text.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
中文多行阅读中,分栏设置和文字说明对回扫眼动行为的影响。
人们经常阅读不同格式的多行文本,国际出版商必须决定如何呈现文本,使阅读最有效、最高效。对多行阅读进行研究的相对较少,而对中文多行阅读进行研究的则更少。在此,我们研究了单列或双列、左对齐或完全对齐的文本是否会影响中文阅读。文本格式对总体阅读时间的影响极小,但对回扫(将视线从一行文本的末尾移至下一行文本的开头的大型眼动)的影响很大。与双栏格式相比,单栏格式的回扫启动和着地距离边缘更远,涉及更多的纠正性回扫。与完全对齐的格式相比,左对齐格式的回扫启动和着地距离页边更近。同时,也出现了更多的矫正回扫。我们的研究结果表明,完全左对齐文本的回扫行为比左对齐文本更有效。此外,我们还发现了明显的权衡效应,即要求增加较短回扫次数的格式会产生更准确的目标定位和更少的纠正性定点,而要求减少较长回扫次数的格式则会导致目标定位不准确和纠正性定点率增加。总之,我们的研究结果表明,文本格式会在很大程度上影响中文阅读过程中的回扫眼动行为,但不会影响效率和效果,即阅读和理解文本所需的总体时间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
7.30%
发文量
96
审稿时长
25 weeks
期刊最新文献
Fixation durations on familiar items are longer due to attenuation of exploration. Different facets of age perception in people with developmental prosopagnosia and "super-recognisers". Self-evaluations and the language of the beholder: objective performance and language solidarity predict L2 and L1 self-evaluations in bilingual adults. Correction: Distress reactions and susceptibility to misinformation for an analogue trauma event. Jack of all trades, master of one: domain-specific and domain-general contributions to perceptual expertise in visual comparison.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1