↓ Skip to main content

Parafoveal Processing in Chinese Sentence Reading: Early Extraction of Radical Level Phonology

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Parafoveal Processing in Chinese Sentence Reading: Early Extraction of Radical Level Phonology
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01605
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jiefei Luo, Yan Wu, Runkai Jiao

Abstract

The present study separated radical level phonology from character level phonology to explore the reliance on phonology during Chinese sentence reading with eye movement recording in a boundary paradigm. Participants viewed sentences with either regular, irregular, orthographically dissimilar homophone, or orthographically dissimilar non-homophone previews for the targets. Both regular and irregular characters contained the target character as the phonetic radical, with the regular character sharing the identical sound with its target phonetic radical. In Experiment 1, the irregular previews were different from the target phonetic radicals both in the first consonant and final compound vowels. In Experiment 2, the irregular characters would be replaced by the semi-regular previews, which shared the same final compound vowels but not the first consonant with the target characters. The radical level phonological preview benefit was obtained by the comparison between regular and irregular characters, while the character level phonological preview benefit was shown by the visually dissimilar homophones compared with the unrelated control condition. The preview benefit from parafoveal regular characters compared with irregular characters was observed in the first fixation duration, suggesting the early activation of phonological codes at radical levels. However, this preview benefit depends on phonological overlapping between the phonetic radicals and their host characters; it could be activated only when the pronunciation of the phonogram was totally consistent with that of its phonetic radical. Furthermore, the null preview effect of visually dissimilar homophones indicates no activation of phonological codes at the character level during Chinese sentence reading.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 23%
Student > Master 5 16%
Lecturer 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Student > Bachelor 1 3%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 8 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 7 23%
Linguistics 6 19%
Neuroscience 3 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 8 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 August 2018.
All research outputs
#17,987,106
of 23,100,534 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,896
of 30,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,535
of 335,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#571
of 748 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,100,534 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 335,207 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 748 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.