读者对时态的不敏感表现:阅读过去时和现在时态故事时的心理模拟没有差异

Collabra Pub Date : 2018-05-30 DOI:10.1525/COLLABRA.121
L. S. Eekhof, Anita Eerland, Roel M. Willems
{"title":"读者对时态的不敏感表现:阅读过去时和现在时态故事时的心理模拟没有差异","authors":"L. S. Eekhof, Anita Eerland, Roel M. Willems","doi":"10.1525/COLLABRA.121","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While the importance of mental simulation during literary reading has long been recognized, we know little about the factors that determine when, what, and how much readers mentally simulate. Here we investigate the influence of a specific text characteristic, namely verb tense (present vs. past), on mental simulation during literary reading. Verbs usually denote the actions and events that take place in narratives and hence it is hypothesized that verb tense will influence the amount of mental simulation elicited in readers. Although the present tense is traditionally considered to be more “vivid”, this study is one of the first to experimentally assess this claim. We recorded eye-movements while subjects read stories in the past or present tense and collected data regarding self-reported levels of mental simulation, transportation and appreciation. We found no influence of tense on any of the offline measures. The eye-tracking data showed a slightly more complex pattern. Although we did not find a main effect of sensorimotor simulation content on reading times, we were able to link the degree to which subjects slowed down when reading simulation eliciting content to offline measures of attention and transportation, but this effect did not interact with the tense of the story. Unexpectedly, we found a main effect of tense on reading times per word, with past tense stories eliciting longer first fixation durations and gaze durations. However, we were unable to link this effect to any of the offline measures. In sum, this study suggests that tense does not play a substantial role in the process of mental simulation elicited by literary stories.","PeriodicalId":93422,"journal":{"name":"Collabra","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Readers’ Insensitivity to Tense Revealed: No Differences in Mental Simulation During Reading of Present and Past Tense Stories\",\"authors\":\"L. S. Eekhof, Anita Eerland, Roel M. Willems\",\"doi\":\"10.1525/COLLABRA.121\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"While the importance of mental simulation during literary reading has long been recognized, we know little about the factors that determine when, what, and how much readers mentally simulate. Here we investigate the influence of a specific text characteristic, namely verb tense (present vs. past), on mental simulation during literary reading. Verbs usually denote the actions and events that take place in narratives and hence it is hypothesized that verb tense will influence the amount of mental simulation elicited in readers. Although the present tense is traditionally considered to be more “vivid”, this study is one of the first to experimentally assess this claim. We recorded eye-movements while subjects read stories in the past or present tense and collected data regarding self-reported levels of mental simulation, transportation and appreciation. We found no influence of tense on any of the offline measures. The eye-tracking data showed a slightly more complex pattern. Although we did not find a main effect of sensorimotor simulation content on reading times, we were able to link the degree to which subjects slowed down when reading simulation eliciting content to offline measures of attention and transportation, but this effect did not interact with the tense of the story. Unexpectedly, we found a main effect of tense on reading times per word, with past tense stories eliciting longer first fixation durations and gaze durations. However, we were unable to link this effect to any of the offline measures. In sum, this study suggests that tense does not play a substantial role in the process of mental simulation elicited by literary stories.\",\"PeriodicalId\":93422,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Collabra\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-05-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Collabra\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1525/COLLABRA.121\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Collabra","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1525/COLLABRA.121","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

虽然人们早就认识到心理模拟在文学阅读中的重要性,但我们对决定读者何时、什么以及在多大程度上进行心理模拟的因素知之甚少。在这里,我们研究了一个特定的文本特征,即动词时态(现在与过去),对文学阅读中心理模拟的影响。动词通常表示发生在叙述中的动作和事件,因此假设动词时态会影响读者的心理模拟量。尽管现在时态传统上被认为更“生动”,但这项研究是第一个通过实验评估这一说法的研究之一。我们记录了受试者在阅读过去时或现在时的眼动,并收集了关于自我报告的心理模拟、运输和欣赏水平的数据。我们没有发现时态对任何离线措施的影响。眼动追踪数据显示出一种稍微复杂一些的模式。尽管我们没有发现感觉运动模拟内容对阅读时间的主要影响,但我们能够将受试者在阅读模拟启发内容时放慢速度的程度与注意力和运输的离线测量联系起来,但这种影响与故事的时态没有相互作用。出乎意料的是,我们发现时态对每个单词的阅读次数有主要影响,过去时故事会引起更长的第一注视持续时间和凝视持续时间。然而,我们无法将这种影响与任何离线措施联系起来。总之,本研究表明,时态在文学故事引发的心理模拟过程中并没有起到实质性的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Readers’ Insensitivity to Tense Revealed: No Differences in Mental Simulation During Reading of Present and Past Tense Stories
While the importance of mental simulation during literary reading has long been recognized, we know little about the factors that determine when, what, and how much readers mentally simulate. Here we investigate the influence of a specific text characteristic, namely verb tense (present vs. past), on mental simulation during literary reading. Verbs usually denote the actions and events that take place in narratives and hence it is hypothesized that verb tense will influence the amount of mental simulation elicited in readers. Although the present tense is traditionally considered to be more “vivid”, this study is one of the first to experimentally assess this claim. We recorded eye-movements while subjects read stories in the past or present tense and collected data regarding self-reported levels of mental simulation, transportation and appreciation. We found no influence of tense on any of the offline measures. The eye-tracking data showed a slightly more complex pattern. Although we did not find a main effect of sensorimotor simulation content on reading times, we were able to link the degree to which subjects slowed down when reading simulation eliciting content to offline measures of attention and transportation, but this effect did not interact with the tense of the story. Unexpectedly, we found a main effect of tense on reading times per word, with past tense stories eliciting longer first fixation durations and gaze durations. However, we were unable to link this effect to any of the offline measures. In sum, this study suggests that tense does not play a substantial role in the process of mental simulation elicited by literary stories.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Having a Positive Attitude or Doing Good Deeds? An Experimental Investigation of Poker Players’ Responses to the Gambling Fallacies Measure The Association Between Smokers’ Approach Bias and Heaviness of Use: A Focus on Light Smokers The Interplay of Time-of-day and Chronotype Results in No General and Robust Cognitive Boost Individual Difference Correlates of Being Sexually Unrestricted Yet Declining an HIV Test Explaining Why Headlines Are True or False Reduces Intentions to Share False Information
×
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