ORCID Profile
0000-0002-5406-4590
Current Organisations
Macquarie University
,
University of Turku
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 16-01-2023
Abstract: Eye-tracking studies have shown that readers reread ironic phrases when resolving their meaning. Moreover, it has been shown that the time-course of processing ironic meaning is affected by readers working memory capacity (WMC). Irony is a context-dependent phenomena but using traditional eye-movement measures it is difficult to analyze processing beyond sentence-level. A promising method to study in idual differences in irony processing at the paragraph-level is scanpath analysis. In the present experiment, we analyzed whether in idual differences in WMC are reflected in scanpaths during reading ironic stories by combining data from two previous eye-tracking studies (N=120). The results revealed three different reading patterns: fast-and-linear reading, and selective and non-selective rereading. The readers predominantly used fast-and-linear reading pattern for ironic and literal stories. However, readers were less likely to use non-selective rereading pattern with ironic than literal texts. The reading patterns for ironic stories were modulated by WMC. Results showed that scanpaths captured differences missed by standard measures, showing it to be a valuable tool to study in idual differences in irony processing.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 17-07-2023
Publisher: University of Groningen Press
Date: 2022
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 04-04-2023
DOI: 10.1002/RRQ.498
Abstract: This study examined the potential of eye‐tracking as a tool for assessing reading comprehension. We administered three widely used reading comprehension tests with varying task demands to 79 typical adult readers while monitoring their eye movements. In the York Assessment of Reading for Comprehension (YARC), participants were given passages of text to read silently, followed by comprehension questions. In the Gray Oral Reading Test (GORT‐5), participants were given passages of text to read aloud, followed by comprehension questions. In the sentence comprehension subtest of the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT‐4), participants were asked to provide a missing word in sentences that they read silently (i.e., a cloze task). Linear models predicting comprehension scores from eye‐tracking measures yielded different results for the three tests. Eye‐tracking measures explained significantly more variance than reading‐speed data for the YARC (four times better), GORT (three times better), and the WRAT (1.3 time better). Importantly, there was no common strong predictor for all three tests. These results support growing recognition that reading comprehension tests do not measure the same cognitive processes, and that participants adapt their reading strategies to the tests' varying task demands. This study also suggests that eye‐tracking may provide a useful alternative for measuring reading comprehension.
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 22-07-2022
Abstract: Purpose: Recent research on the potential of using eye-tracking to measure reading comprehension ability suggests that the relationship between standard eye-tracking measures and reading comprehension is influenced by differences in task demands between comprehension assessments. We compared standard eye-tracking measures and scanpath regularity as predictors of reading comprehension scores. Method: We used a dataset in which participants were administered three widely-used reading comprehension assessments with varying task demands while their eye movements were monitored: the York Assessment of Reading for Comprehension (YARC), the Gray Oral Reading Test (GORT-5), and the sentence comprehension subtest of the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT-4). Results: Results showed that scanpath regularity measures, similarly to standard eye-tracking measures, were influenced by differences in task demands between the three tests. Nevertheless, both types of eye-tracking measures made unique contributions as predictors of comprehension and the best set of predictors included both standard eye-tracking measures and at least one scanpath measure across tests. Conclusion: The results provide evidence that scanpaths capture differences in eye-movement patterns missed by standard eye-tracking measures. Overall, the results highlight the effect of task demands on eye-movement behavior and suggest that reading goals and task demands need to be considered when interpreting eye-tracking data.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 16-10-2023
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 14-09-2021
Abstract: Research on reading comprehension assessments suggests that they measure overlapping but not identical cognitive skills. In this paper, we examined the potential of eye-tracking as a tool for assessing reading comprehension. We administered three widely-used reading comprehension tests with varying task demands to 79 typical adult readers while monitoring their eye movements. In the York Assessment for Reading Comprehension (YARC), participants were given passages of text to read silently, followed by comprehension questions. In the Gray Oral Reading Test (GORT-5), participants were given passages of text to read aloud, followed by comprehension questions. In the sentence comprehension subtest of the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT-4), participants were given sentences with a missing word to read silently, and had to provide the missing word (i.e., a cloze task). Results from linear models predicting comprehension scores from eye-tracking measures yielded different patterns of results between the three tests. Models with eye-tracking measures always explained significantly more variance compared to baseline models with only reading speed, with R-squared 4 times higher for the YARC, 3 times for the GORT, and 1.3 times for the WRAT. Importantly, despite some similarities between the tests, no common good predictor of comprehension could be identified across the tests. Overall, the results suggest that reading comprehension tests do not measure the same cognitive skills to the same extent, and that participants adapted their reading strategies to the tests’ varying task demands. Finally, this study suggests that eye-tracking may provide a useful alternative for measuring reading comprehension.
No related grants have been discovered for Diane Meziere.