ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2025
Towards a model of eye-movement control in Chinese reading.
Review in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hierarchy of the Constituent Characters in Chinese Non-Idiomatic Three-Character Words: An Eye-Tracking Study.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Reading fluency and word segmentation agreement modulate the benefits of word boundary cues for older readers in traditional Chinese.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- The role of format familiarity and semantic transparency in Chinese reading: evidence from eye movements.BMC psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Chinese writing system has several features that make it markedly different from the alphabetic systems that have most often been examined in reading research, including the fact that individual words consist of various uniformly sized, box-shaped characters whose boundaries are not clearly demarcated (e.g., by blank spaces). These features raise the question: How do readers of Chinese "know" where to move their eyes for the purpose of efficiently segmenting and/or identifying words? To answer this question, we used the E-Z Reader model of eye-movement control in reading to run an 'experiment' involving a series of simulations in which two saccade-targeting assumptions (i.e., directing the eyes towards default targets vs. adjusting saccade length as a function of parafoveal processing difficulty) were factorially manipulated with three word-segmentation heuristics (i.e., ideal-observer knowledge of word boundaries vs. probabilistic guessing vs. familiarity-based segmentation) to examine which combination of assumptions provide the best quantitative account of eye-movement control during the reading of Chinese. Based on these simulations, we conclude the best account is one in which readers use relative differences in the familiarity of groups of parafoveal characters to dynamically adjust the lengths of saccades in a manner that affords efficient word identification. We discuss the broader theoretical implications of these conclusions for models of Chinese reading and for models of reading more generally.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39240533What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.