Rhythmic Subvocalization: An Eye-Tracking Study on Silent Poetry Reading
Abstract
:To recapitulate then:I would define, in brief,the Poetry of words asThe Rhythmical Creationof Beauty.Edgar Allan Poe, The Poetic Principle
Introduction
Subvocalization and eye-movements
Metrically regular, rhymed language (MRRL)
Entrainment and MRRL
Aim and rationale of the study
Methods
Participants
Ethical Statement
Apparatus
Design and Materials
Procedure
Data Analysis
Results
Discussion
Complete Model
Discussion
Discussion
Load contributions of pre-rhymes
Discussion
General Discussion
Limitations
Conclusion
Ethics and Conflict of Interest
Acknowledgements
References
- Abramson, M., and S. D. Goldinger. 1997. What the reader’s eye tells the mind’s ear: Silent reading activates inner speech. Perception & Psychophysics 59, 7: 1059–1068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alderson-Day, B., M. Bernini, and C. Fernyhough. 2017. Uncharted features and dynamics of reading: Voices, characters, and crossing of experiences. Consciousness and Cognition 49: 98–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Andreetta, S., O. Soldatkina, V. Boboeva, and A. Treves. 2021. In poetry, if meter has to help memory, it takes its time [Preprint]. Neuroscience. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arnal, L. H., K. B. Doelling, and D. Poeppel. 2015. Delta–Beta coupled oscillations underlie temporal prediction accuracy. Cerebral Cortex 25, 9: 3077–3085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aryani, A., M. Kraxenberger, S. Ullrich, A. M. Jacobs, and M. Conrad. 2016. Measuring the basic affective tone of poems via phonological saliency and iconicity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 10, 2: 191–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ashby, J., and C. Clifton. 2005. The prosodic property of lexical stress affects eye movements during silent reading. Cognition 96, 3: B89–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baayen, R. H. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bader, M. 1998. Edited by J. D. Fodor and F. Ferreira. Prosodic influences on reading syntactically ambiguous sentences. In Reanalysis in Sentence Processing. Springer: pp. 1–46. [Google Scholar]
- Bates, D., M. Mächler, B. Bolker, and S. Walker. 2015. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beier, E. J., and F. Ferreira. 2018. The temporal prediction of stress in speech and its relation to musical beat perception. Frontiers in Psychology 9: 431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belica, C., M. Kupietz, H. Lüngen, and R. Perkuhn. 2012. DeReWo–Korpusbasierte Grund-/Wortformenlisten. derewo-v-ww-bll-320000g-2012-12-311.0. [Google Scholar]
- Berent, I. 2013. The phonological mind. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 17, 7: 319–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blohm, S., W. Menninghaus, and M. Schlesewsky. 2017. Sentence-level effects of literary genre: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Frontiers in Psychology 8: 1887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blohm, S., V. Wagner, M. Schlesewsky, and W. Menninghaus. 2018. Sentence judgments and the grammar of poetry: Linking linguistic structure and poetic effect. Poetics 69: 41–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blohm, Stefan. 2020. Literary Psycholinguistics and the Poem [University of Mainz]. https://publications.ub.uni-mainz.de/theses/frontdoor.php?source_opus=100003271.
- Breen, M. 2014. Empirical investigations of the role of implicit prosody in sentence processing: Implicit prosody. Language and Linguistics Compass 8, 2: 37–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Breen, M. 2018. Effects of metric hierarchy and rhyme predictability on word duration in The Cat in the Hat. Cognition 174: 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Breen, M., and C. Clifton. 2011. Stress matters: Effects of anticipated lexical stress on silent reading. Journal of Memory and Language 64, 2: 153–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Breen, M., and C. Clifton. 2013. Stress matters revisited: A boundary change experiment. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 66, 10: 1896–1909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Breen, M., A. B. Fitzroy, and M. Oraa Ali. 2019. Eventrelated potential evidence of implicit metric structure during silent reading. Brain Sciences 9, 8: 192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, M., A. P. Salverda, L. C. Dilley, and M. K. Tanenhaus. 2015. Metrical expectations from preceding prosody influence perception of lexical stress. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 41, 2: 306–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carminati, M. N., J. Stabler, A. M. Roberts, and M. H. Fischer. 2006. Readers’ responses to sub-genre and rhyme scheme in poetry. Poetics 34, 3: 204–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carper, T., and D. Attridge. 2003. Meter and meaning: An introduction to rhythm in poetry. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- Cason, N., and D. Schön. 2012. Rhythmic priming enhances the phonological processing of speech. Neuropsychologia 50, 11: 2652–2658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castiglione, D. 2017. Difficult poetry processing: Reading times and the narrativity hypothesis. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 26, 2: 99–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castiglione, D. 2019. Difficulty in Poetry: A Stylistic Model. Springer International Publishing. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chafe, W. 1988. Punctuation and the Prosody of Written Language. Written Communication 5, 4: 395–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Liberto, G. M., J. A. O’Sullivan, and E. C. Lalor. 2015. Low-Frequency Cortical Entrainment To Speech Reflects Phoneme-Level Processing. Current Biology 25, 19: 2457–2465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eiter, B. M., and A. W. Inhoff. 2010. Visual word recognition during reading is followed by subvocal articulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition 36, 2: 457–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Essens, P. J., and D.-J. Povel. 1985. Metrical and nonmetrical representations of temporal patterns. Perception & Psychophysics 37, 1: 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fabb, N. 2009. Why Is Verse Poetry? PN Review, 36(1), 52. MLA International Bibliography. [Google Scholar]
- Fabb, N. 2013. There is no psychological limit on the duration of metrical lines in performance: Against Turner and Pöppel. International Journal of Literary Linguistics 2, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fabb, N. 2015. What is Poetry?: Language and Memory in the Poems of the World. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Fabb, N., M. Halle, and C. Piera. 2008. Meter in poetry: A new theory. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Falk, S., T. Rathcke, and S. Dalla Bella. 2014. When speech sounds like music. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 40, 4: 1491–1506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fechino, M., A. M. Jacobs, and J. Lüdtke. 2020. Following in Jakobson and Lévi-Strauss’ footsteps: A neurocognitive poetics investigation of eye movements during the reading of Baudelaire’s ‘Les Chats. ’ Journal of Eye Movement Research 13, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fedorenko, E., A. Patel, D. Casasanto, J. Winawer, and E. Gibson. 2009. Structural integration in language and music: Evidence for a shared system. Memory & Cognition 37, 1: 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Fernholz, I., J. Menzel, H.-C. Jabusch, H. Gembris, F. Fischer, F. Kendel, G. Kreutz, A. Schmidt, S. N. Willich, and C. Weikert. 2018. Musikalische Inaktivität–ein Risikofaktor? Vorstellung eines kurzen Fragebogens zur Erfassung der musikalischen Aktivität (MusA). Das Gesundheitswesen. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fitzroy, A. B., and M. Breen. 2020. Metric structure and rhyme predictability modulate speech intensity during child-directed and read-alone productions of children’s literature. Language and Speech 63, 2: 292–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fitzsimmons, G., and D. Drieghe. 2011. The influence of number of syllables on word skipping during reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 18, 4: 736–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Floessner, T., and R. A. Hut. 2017. Edited by V. Kumar. Basic principles underlying biological oscillations and their entrainment. In Biological Timekeeping: Clocks, Rhythms and Behaviour. Springer India: Vol. 366, pp. 47–58. [Google Scholar]
- Fodor, J. D. 1998. Learning to parse? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 27: 285–319. [Google Scholar]
- Fodor, J. D. 2002a. Edited by Hirotani. Prosodic disambiguation in silent reading: M. Hirotani (ed.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 32. GSLA, University of Massachusetts. [Google Scholar]
- Fodor, J. D. 2002b. Psycholinguistics cannot escape prosody. SPEECH PROSODY 2002 Conference. Speech Prosody, Aix-en-Provence, France. [Google Scholar]
- Fujioka, T., L. J. Trainor, E. W. Large, and B. Ross. 2012. Internalized timing of isochronous sounds is represented in neuromagnetic Beta oscillations. The Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience 32, 5: 1791–1802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fuller, D. 2001. Pause. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gjerdingen, R. O. 1989. Meter as a mode of attending: A network simulation of attentional rhythmicity in music. Intégral: The Journal of Applied Musical Thought, 3, 67–91. RILM Abstracts of Music Literature (1967 to present). [Google Scholar]
- Grimm, J. und W. Translated by M. Hunt. Household tales by the Brothers Grimm. Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm. George Bell and Sons.
- Hanauer, D. 1996. Integration of phonetic and graphic features in poetic text categorization judgements. Poetics 23, 5: 363–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanauer, D. 1998a. Reading Poetry: An Empirical Investigation of Formalist, Stylistic, and Conventionalist Claims. Poetics Today 19, 4: 565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanauer, D. 1998b. The genre-specific hypothesis of reading: Reading poetry and encyclopedic items. Poetics 26, 2: 63–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanauer, D. 2001. Edited by D. Schram and G. J. Steen. What we know about reading poetry. In The Psychology and Sociology of Literature. John Benjamins Publishing Company: Vol. 35, pp. 107–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hetherington, P., and C. L. Atherton. 2020. Prose poetry: An introduction. Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Hoffstaedter, P. 1987. Poetic text processing and its empirical investigation. Poetics 16, 1: 75–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Honing, H. 2012. Without it no music: Beat induction as a fundamental musical trait. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1252: 85–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Honing, H., ed. 2018. The origins of musicality. The MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
- Honing, H. 2019. Der Affe schlägt den Takt. Henschel Verlag. [Google Scholar]
- Hothorn, T., F. Bretz, and P. Westfall. 2008. Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometrical Journal 50, 3: 346–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huey, E. 1908. The psychology and pedagogy of reading. Macmillan. https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_2347473_2/component/file_2347472/content.
- Hurschler, M. A., F. Liem, M. Oechslin, P. Stämpfli, and M. Meyer. 2015. FMRI reveals lateralized pattern of brain activity modulated by the metrics of stimuli during auditory rhyme processing. Brain and Language 147: 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Just, M. A., and P. A. Carpenter. 1980. A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review 87, 4: 329–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kayser, W. 2002. Kleine deutsche Versschule. UTB GmbH. [Google Scholar]
- Kentner, G. 2012. Linguistic rhythm guides parsing decisions in written sentence comprehension. Cognition 123, 1: 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kentner, G. 2016. Rhythmic parsing. The Linguistic Review 34, 1: 123–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kentner, G., and S. Vasishth. 2016. Prosodic focus marking in silent reading: Effects of discourse context and rhythm. Frontiers in Psychology 7: 319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kien, J., and A. Kemp. 1994. Is speech temporally segemented? Comparison with temporal segmentation in behaviour. Brain and Language 46: 662–682. [Google Scholar]
- Kiparsky, P. 2009. Review: Meter in Poetry: A New Theory by Nigel Fabb and Morris Halle. Language 85, 4: 923–930. [Google Scholar]
- Kliegl, R., E. Grabner, M. Rolfs, and R. Engbert. 2004. Length, frequency, and predictability effects of words on eye movements in reading. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 16, 1–2: 262–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knoop, C. A., S. Blohm, M. Kraxenberger, and W. Menninghaus. 2019. How perfect are imperfect rhymes? Effects of phonological similarity and verse context on rhyme perception. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koelsch, S., and W. A. Siebel. 2005. Towards a neural basis of music perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9, 12: 578–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Konieczny, L., B. Hemforth, and C. Scheepers. 2000. Edited by B. Hemforth and L. Konieczny. Head position and clause boundary effects in reanalysis. In German Sentence Processing. Kluwer Academic Publishers: pp. 247–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Konieczny, L., B. Hemforth, C. Scheepers, and G. Strube. 1997. The role of lexical heads in parsing: Evidence from German. Language and Cognitive Processes 12: 307–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koops van ’t Jagt, R., J. Hoeks, G. J. Dorleijn, and P. Hendriks. 2014. Look before you leap: How enjambment affects the processing of poetry. Scientific Study of Literature 4, 1: 3–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kösem, A., H. R. Bosker, A. Takashima, A. Meyer, O. Jensen, and P. Hagoort. 2018. Neural entrainment determines the words we hear. Current Biology 28, 18: 2867–2875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kotz, S. A., A. Ravignani, and W. T. Fitch. 2018. The evolution of rhythm processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 22, 10: 896–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kotz, S. A., and M. Schwartze. 2010. Cortical speech processing unplugged: A timely subcortico-cortical framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14, 9: 392–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kotz, S. A., and M. Schwartze. 2016. Edited by G. Hickok and L. Small S. Motor-timing and sequencing in speech production: A general-purpose framework. In Neurobiology of Language. Academic Press: pp. 717–724. [Google Scholar]
- Kraxenberger, M., W. Menninghaus, A. Roth, and M. Scharinger. 2018. Prosody-based sound-emotion associations in poetry. Frontiers in Psychology 9: 1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kriukova, O., and N. Mani. 2016. The strong, the weak, and the first: The impact of phonological stress on processing of orthographic errors in silent reading. Brain Research 1636: 208–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kunert, R., R. M. Willems, D. Casasanto, A. D. Patel, and P. Hagoort. 2015. Music and language syntax interact in Broca’s area: An fMRI study. PloS ONE 10, 11: e0141069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuznetsova, A., P. B. Brockhoff, and R. H. B. Christensen. 2017. lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. Journal of Statistical Software 82, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lange, E. B., A. Pieczykolan, H. A. Trukenbrod, and L. Huestegge. 2018. The rhythm of cognition–Effects of an auditory beat on oculomotor control in reading and sequential scanning 11, 2. [CrossRef]
- Langus, A., J. Mehler, and M. Nespor. 2017. Rhythm in language acquisition. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 81, Pt B: 158–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laubrock, J., and R. Kliegl. 2015. The eye-voice span during reading aloud. Frontiers in Psychology 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, H.-W., K. Rayner, and A. Pollatsek. 2002. The processing of consonants and vowels in reading: Evidence from the fast priming paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 9, 4: 766–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lerdahl, F. 2001. The sounds of poetry viewed as music. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 930, 1: 337–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lerdahl, F. 2013. Edited by M.A. Arbib. Musical syntax and its relation to linguistic syntax. In Language, Music, and the Brain: A Mysterious Relationship. MIT Press: pp. 257–272. [Google Scholar]
- Lerdahl, F., and R. Jackendoff. 1983. An Overview of Hierarchical Structure in Music. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal 1, 2: 229–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- London, J. 2012a. Hearing in time: Psychological aspects of musical meter, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- London, J. 2012b. Three things linguists need to know about rhythm and time in music. Empirical Musicology Review 7, 1–2: 5–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manguel, A. 1996. A history of reading. Flamingo. [Google Scholar]
- Melby-Lervåg, M., S.-A. H. Lyster, and C. Hulme. 2012. Phonological skills and their role in learning to read: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin 138, 2: 322–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menninghaus, W., and S. Blohm. 2020. Edited by M. Nadal and O. Vartanian. Empirical aesthetics of poetry. In The Oxford Handbook of Empirical Aesthetics. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menninghaus, W., V. Wagner, C. A. Knoop, and M. Scharinger. 2018. Poetic speech melody: A crucial link between music and language. PloS ONE 13, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menninghaus, W., V. Wagner, E. Wassiliwizky, T. Jacobsen, and C. A. Knoop. 2017. The emotional and aesthetic powers of parallelistic diction. Poetics 63: 47–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menninghaus, W., and S. Wallot. 2021. What the eyes reveal about (reading) poetry. Poetics, 101526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merker, B. H., G. S. Madison, and P. Eckerdal. 2009. On the role and origin of isochrony in human rhythmic entrainment. Cortex 45, 1: 4–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Metz-Göckel, H., ed. 2008. Gestalttheorie aktuell, 1. ed. Krammer: Vol. 1. [Google Scholar]
- Morgan, E., A. Fogel, A. Nair, and A. D. Patel. 2019. Statistical learning and Gestalt-like principles predict melodic expectations. Cognition 189: 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nolan, F., and H.-S. Jeon. 2014. Speech rhythm: A metaphor? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 369, 1658: 20130396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nozaradan, S. 2014. Exploring how musical rhythm entrains brain activity with electroencephalogram frequency-tagging. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 369, 1658: 20130393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Obermeier, C., S. A. Kotz, S. Jessen, T. Raettig, M. von Koppenfels, and W. Menninghaus. 2016. Aesthetic appreciation of poetry correlates with ease of processing in event-related potentials. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience 16, 2: 362–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Obermeier, C., W. Menninghaus, M. von Koppenfels, T. Raettig, M. Schmidt-Kassow, S. Otterbein, and S. A. Kotz. 2013. Aesthetic and emotional effects of meter and rhyme in poetry. Frontiers in Psychology 4: 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Obleser, J., and C. Kayser. 2019. Neural entrainment and attentional selection in the listening brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 23, 11: 913–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patel, A. D. 2003. Rhythm in language and music: Parallels and differences. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 999: 140–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patel, A. D. 2010. Music, language, and the brain. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Perrone-Bertolotti, M., L. Rapin, J. P. Lachaux, M. Baciu, and H. Løevenbruck. 2014. What is that little voice inside my head? Inner speech phenomenology, its role in cognitive performance, and its relation to self-monitoring. Behavioural Brain Research 261: 220–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peskin, J. 2007. The genre of poetry: Secondary school students’ conventional expectations and interpretive operations. English in Education 41, 3: 20–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Port, R. F. 2003. Meter and speech. Journal of Phonetics 31, 3–4: 599–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- R Core Team. 2020. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.com.
- Ravignani, A., S. Dalla Bella, S. Falk, C. T. Kello, F. Noriega, and S. A. Kotz. 2019. Rhythm in speech and animal vocalizations: A cross-species perspective. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1453, 1: 79–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ravignani, A., and G. Madison. 2017. The paradox of isochrony in the evolution of human rhythm. Frontiers in Psychology 8: 1820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rayner, K. 2009. Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 62, 8: 1457–1506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rayner, K., and A. Pollatsek. 1989. The psychology of reading. Prentice-Hall. [Google Scholar]
- Rebuschat, P., M. Rohmeier, J. A. Hawkins, and I. Cross, eds. 2011. Language and Music as Cognitive Systems. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ringelnatz, J. 1997. Sämtliche Gedichte. Diogenes. [Google Scholar]
- Rothermich, K., M. Schmidt-Kassow, and S. A. Kotz. 2012. Rhythm’s gonna get you: Regular meter facilitates semantic sentence processing. Neuropsychologia 50, 2: 232–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rubin, D. C., V. Ciobanu, and W. Langston. 1997. Children’s memory for counting-out rhymes: A cross-language comparison. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 4, 3: 421–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scheepers, C., S. Mohr, M. H. Fischer, and A. M. Roberts. 2013. Listening to Limericks: A pupillometry investigation of perceivers’ expectancy. PloS ONE 8, 9: e74986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmidt-Kassow, M., and S. A. Kotz. 2009a. Attention and perceptual regularity in speech. Neuroreport 20, 18: 1643–1647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmidt-Kassow, M., and S. A. Kotz. 2009b. Event-related brain potentials suggest a late interaction of meter and syntax in the P600. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 21, 9: 1693–1708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmidtke, D. S., M. Conrad, and A. M. Jacobs. 2014. Phonological iconicity. Frontiers in Psychology 5, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schofield, M., ed. 2016. Laws: Plato. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Schrott, R., and A. Jacobs. 2011. Gehirn und Gedicht: Wie wir unsere Wirklichkeiten konstruieren. Carl Hanser Verlag. [Google Scholar]
- Schuster, S., S. Hawelka, F. Hutzler, M. Kronbichler, and F. Richlan. 2016. Words in context: The effects of length, frequency, and predictability on brain responses during natural reading. Cerebral Cortex 26, 10: 3889.2–3904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Selkirk, E. 1986. On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology 3: 371–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silva, S., and S. L. Castro. 2019. The time will come: Evidence for an eye-audiation span in silent music reading. Psychology of Music 47, 4: 504–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skov, M., and M. Nadal. 2020. There are no aesthetic emotions: Comment on Menninghaus et al. (2019). Psychological Review 127, 4: 640–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Slana, A., G. Repovš, W. T. Fitch, and B. Gingras. 2016. Harmonic context influences pitch class equivalence judgments through gestalt and congruency effects. Acta Psychologica 166: 54–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, B. H. 1968. Poetic closure: A study of how poems end. University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
- Stolterfoht, B., A. Friederici, K. Alter, and A. Steube. 2007. Processing focus structure and implicit prosody during reading: Differential ERP effects. Cognition 104, 3: 565–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tierney, A., and N. Kraus. 2013. The ability to move to a beat is linked to the consistency of neural responses to sound. The Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience 33, 38: 14981–14988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tierney, A., and N. Kraus. 2015. Neural entrainment to the rhythmic structure of music. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 27, 2: 400–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tierney, A., T. White-Schwoch, J. MacLean, and N. Kraus. 2017. Individual differences in rhythm skills: Links with neural consistency and linguistic ability. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 29, 5: 855–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tillmann, B., and W. Jay Dowling. 2007. Memory decreases for prose, but not for poetry. Memory & Cognition 35, 4: 628–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tilsen, S. 2019. Space and time in models of speech rhythm. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1453, 1: 47–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tremblay, A., and J. Ransijn. 2015. LMERConvenienceFunctions: Model selection and post-hoc analysis for (G)LMER models (Version 2.10). https://CRAN.Rproject.org/package = LMER ConvinienceFunctions. [Google Scholar]
- Trueswell, J. C., M. K. Tanenhaus, and S. M. Garnsey. 1994. Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 33, 3: 285–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsur, R., J. Glicksohn, and C. Goodblatt. 1991. Gestalt qualities in poetry and the reader’s absorption style. Journal of Pragmatics 16, 5: 487–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, F., and E. Pöppel. 1983. The neural lyre: Poetic meter, the brain and time. Poetry 142, 5: 277–309. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20599567.
- Van Peer, W. 1990. The measurement of metre: Its cognitive and affective functions. Poetics 19, 3: 259–275. [Google Scholar]
- Vilhauer, R. P. 2017. Characteristics of inner reading voices. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 58, 4: 269–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wade, B. C. 2004. Thinking musically: Experiencing music, expressing culture. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, L., Y. Bao, J. Zhang, X. Lin, L. Yang, E. Pöppel, and B. Zhou. 2016. Scanning the world in three seconds: Mismatch negativity as an indicator of temporal segmentation: Mismatch negativity and temporal segmentation. PsyCh Journal 5, 3: 170–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, L., X. Lin, B. Zhou, E. Pöppel, and Y. Bao. 2015. Subjective present: A window of temporal integration indexed by mismatch negativity. Cognitive Processing 16: 131–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wassiliwizky, E., S. Koelsch, V. Wagner, T. Jacobsen, and W. Menninghaus. 2017. The emotional power of poetry: Neural circuitry, psychophysiology and compositional principles. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 12, 8: 1229–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whittall, A. 2011. Edited by A. Latham. Rhythm. In The Oxford Companion to Music. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Xue, S., A. M. Jacobs, and J. Lüdtke. 2020. What Is the Difference? Rereading Shakespeare’s Sonnets—An Eye Tracking Study. Frontiers in Psychology 11: 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xue, S., J. Lüdtke, T. Sylvester, and A. M. Jacobs. 2019. Reading Shakespeare sonnets: Combining quantitative narrative analysis and predictive modeling an eye tracking study. Journal of Eye Movement Research 12, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yaron, I. 2002. Processing of obscure poetic texts: Mechanisms of selection. Journal of Literary Semantics 31, 2: 178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yaron, I. 2008. What is a “difficult poem”? Towards a definition. Journal of Literary Semantics 37, 2: 107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoncheva, Y. N., U. Maurer, J. D. Zevin, and B. D. McCandliss. 2013. Effects of rhyme and spelling patterns on auditory word ERPs depend on selective attention to phonology. Brain and Language 124, 3: 238–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, X., and Y. Bao. 2020. The three second time window in poems and language processing in general: Complementarity of discrete timing and temporal continuity. PsyCh Journal 9, 4: 429–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zoefel, B., A. Archer-Boyd, and M. H. Davis. 2018. Phase Entrainment of Brain Oscillations Causally Modulates Neural Responses to Intelligible Speech. Current Biology 28, 3: 401–408.e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zwaan, R. A. 1991. Some parameters of literary and news comprehension: Effects of discourse-type perspective on reading rate and surface structure representation. Poetics 20, 2: 139–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
eye.param | Estimate | se | df | t | p | |
(Intercept) | SFD | 0.07 | 0.033 | 8.8 | 2.132 | =.063 |
GAZE | 0.093 | 0.044 | 10 | 2.085 | =.064 | |
RPD | 0.144 | 0.04 | 20.7 | 3.6 | =.002 | |
TRT | 0.114 | 0.045 | 11.8 | 2.567 | =.025 | |
anomaly_type metric | SFD | 0.059 | 0.028 | 410 | 2.104 | =.036 |
GAZE | 0.063 | 0.029 | 546.9 | 2.172 | =.03 | |
RPD | 0.037 | 0.03 | 37.7 | 1.213 | ||
TRT | 0.041 | 0.029 | 122.3 | 1.402 | ||
anomaly_type rhyme | SFD | -0.018 | 0.026 | 48.6 | -0.692 | |
GAZE | -0.004 | 0.033 | 44.7 | -0.12 | ||
RPD | 0.015 | 0.034 | 37.2 | 0.447 | ||
TRT | 0.028 | 0.031 | 38.8 | 0.901 | ||
MRRL_version inconsistent | SFD | 0.014 | 0.02 | 48 | 0.696 | |
GAZE | 0.014 | 0.019 | 86.9 | 0.703 | ||
RPD | 0.046 | 0.021 | 49.9 | 2.239 | =.03 | |
TRT | 0.056 | 0.018 | 217.8 | 3.03 | =.003 | |
layout poem | SFD | 0.026 | 0.017 | 219.4 | 1.473 | |
GAZE | 0.028 | 0.019 | 129.4 | 1.479 | ||
RPD | 0 | 0.019 | 99.2 | 0.008 | ||
TRT | -0.003 | 0.019 | 46.8 | -0.158 | ||
anomaly_type metric:MRRL_version inconsistent | SFD | 0.025 | 0.028 | 606.5 | 0.885 | |
GAZE | 0.045 | 0.029 | 1056.1 | 1.556 | ||
RPD | -0.006 | 0.028 | 1025.5 | -0.217 | ||
TRT | 0.033 | 0.028 | 1065.6 | 1.165 | ||
anomaly_type rhyme:MRRL_version inconsistent | SFD | 0.004 | 0.022 | 633.8 | 0.172 | |
GAZE | 0.023 | 0.024 | 1066.3 | 0.939 | ||
RPD | -0.012 | 0.024 | 1027.7 | -0.501 | ||
TRT | -0.01 | 0.023 | 1091.7 | -0.429 | ||
anomaly_type metric:layout poem | SFD | 0.077 | 0.028 | 605.5 | 2.751 | =.006 |
GAZE | 0.082 | 0.029 | 1059.1 | 2.861 | =.004 | |
RPD | 0.1 | 0.028 | 1041.1 | 3.531 | <.001 | |
TRT | 0.025 | 0.028 | 1070.2 | 0.911 | ||
anomaly_type rhyme:layout poem | SFD | -0.051 | 0.022 | 629.4 | -2.256 | =.024 |
GAZE | -0.029 | 0.024 | 1066.7 | -1.174 | ||
RPD | -0.024 | 0.024 | 1025.8 | -1.018 | ||
TRT | -0.006 | 0.023 | 1090 | -0.239 | ||
MRRL_version inconsistent:layout poem | SFD | 0.018 | 0.017 | 621.2 | 1.018 | |
GAZE | 0.022 | 0.018 | 1081.3 | 1.208 | ||
RPD | 0.013 | 0.018 | 1061.4 | 0.742 | ||
TRT | 0.022 | 0.018 | 1116.7 | 1.206 | ||
anomaly_type metric:MRRL_version incon- | SFD | 0.051 | 0.028 | 595.4 | 1.842 | =.066 |
sistent:layout poem | GAZE | 0.059 | 0.029 | 1059.4 | 2.044 | =.041 |
RPD | 0.065 | 0.028 | 1036.9 | 2.305 | =.021 | |
TRT | 0.057 | 0.028 | 1068.4 | 2.039 | =.042 | |
anomaly_type rhyme:MRRL_version incon- | SFD | -0.047 | 0.022 | 626.8 | -2.107 | =.036 |
sistent:layout poem | GAZE | -0.062 | 0.024 | 1067.8 | -2.556 | =.011 |
RPD | -0.05 | 0.024 | 1024 | -2.123 | =.034 | |
TRT | -0.036 | 0.023 | 1089.7 | -1.52 |
MRRL_version (A) | contrast | eye.param | Estimate | SE | df | t.ratio | p |
layout = poem, anomaly_type = metric | inconsistent consistent | SFD | 0.2153 | 0.1194 | 362 | 1.804 | =.072 |
GAZE | 0.27800 | 0.1108 | 813 | 2.509 | =.012 | ||
RPD | 0.23684 | 0.1094 | 746 | 2.164 | =.031 | ||
TRT | 0.3350 | 0.1054 | 867 | 3.179 | =.002 | ||
layout = prose, anomaly_type = rhyme | GAZE | 0.15293 | 0.0831 | 514 | 1.840 | =.066 | |
RPD | 0.14291 | 0.0826 | 433 | 1.729 | =.085 | ||
layout = prose, anomaly_type = r&m | GAZE | -0.15909 | 0.0780 | 458 | -2.039 | =.042 | |
RPD | 0.13070 | 0.0783 | 387 | 1.670 | =.096 | ||
layout (B) | contrast | eye.param | estimate | SE | df | t.ratio | p |
anomaly_type = metric, | poem prose | SFD | 0.34350 | 0.1218 | 406 | 2.821 | =.005 |
MRRL_version = inconsistent | |||||||
GAZE | 0.381739 | 0.1058 | 818 | 3.608 | <.001 | ||
RPD | 0.3561 | 0.1045 | 807 | 3.408 | <.001 | ||
TRT | 0.2485 | 0.1036 | 811 | 2.400 | =.017 | ||
anomaly_type = r&m, MRRL_version = inconsistent | RPD | -0.1525 | 0.0758 | 461 | -2.011 | =.045 | |
anomaly_type = r&m, | RPD | -0.1484 | 0.0788 | 501 | -1.884 | =.060 | |
MRRL_version = consistent | |||||||
anomaly_type (C) | contrast | Estimate | SE | df | t.ratio | p | |
MRRL_version = inconsistent, layout = poem | metric rhyme | SFD | 0.323769 | 0.1056 | 248 | 3.065 | =.007 |
GAZE | 0.3197 | 0.0968 | 288 | 3.303 | =.003 | ||
RPD | 0.26612 | 0.0964 | 255 | 2.762 | =.017 | ||
metric r&m | SFD | 0.312746 | 0.1040 | 244 | 3.006 | =.008 | |
GAZE | 0.4242 | 0.0944 | 343 | 4.496 | <.001 | ||
RPD | 0.31847 | 0.0943 | 303 | 3.379 | =.002 | ||
TRT | 0.28156 | 0.0906 | 373 | 3.106 | =.006 |
eye.param | Estimate | se | df | t | p | |
(Intercept) | SFD | 5.387 | 0.027 | 304.2 | 198.675 | <.001 |
GAZE | 5.609 | 0.03 | 148.4 | 184.162 | <.001 | |
RPD | 6.25 | 0.231 | 22348.2 | 27.113 | <.001 | |
TRT | 5.778 | 0.037 | 44.2 | 156.429 | <.001 | |
MRRL_version inconsistent | SFD | 0.006 | 0.003 | 18422.1 | 1.72 | =.086 |
GAZE | -0.004 | 0.003 | 24564.3 | -1.544 | ||
TRT | 0.004 | 0.005 | 30668.9 | 0.739 | ||
layout poem | SFD | 0.002 | 0.007 | 18411.5 | 0.322 | |
GAZE | 0.001 | 0.007 | 24585.4 | 0.173 | ||
RPD | 0.012 | 0.004 | 24557.8 | 2.672 | =.008 | |
TRT | 0.017 | 0.006 | 30663.7 | 2.655 | =.008 | |
cvq.p1 | SFD | 0.008 | 0.003 | 17156.1 | 3.081 | =.002 |
GAZE | -0.008 | 0.004 | 24539.8 | -2.05 | =.04 | |
res.syllables | SFD | 0.027 | 0.007 | 13594.5 | 3.616 | <.001 |
GAZE | 0.048 | 0.008 | 24538.8 | 6.233 | <.001 | |
RPD | 0.038 | 0.008 | 24550.8 | 4.686 | <.001 | |
TRT | 0.059 | 0.011 | 41.1 | 5.444 | <.001 | |
EOV + | SFD | 0.022 | 0.004 | 18416.5 | 4.989 | <.001 |
GAZE | 0.02 | 0.005 | 24543.9 | 4.081 | <.001 | |
RPD | 0.031 | 0.005 | 24553.2 | 6.252 | <.001 | |
TRT | 0.011 | 0.005 | 30653.5 | 2.048 | =.041 | |
BOV + | SFD | -0.013 | 0.006 | 18404.4 | -2.039 | =.041 |
GAZE | -0.002 | 0.006 | 24569.2 | -0.296 | ||
RPD | 0.018 | 0.006 | 24569.5 | 3.078 | =.002 | |
TRT | -0.015 | 0.006 | 30655.9 | -2.628 | =.009 | |
trial | TRT | -0.012 | 0.003 | 30381.9 | -4.02 | <.001 |
word_length | GAZE | 0.056 | 0.003 | 39.4 | 17.291 | <.001 |
RPD | 0.065 | 0.003 | 42.2 | 20.539 | <.001 | |
TRT | 0.078 | 0.004 | 48.2 | 19.654 | <.001 | |
log.freq | SFD | -0.004 | 0.001 | 5331.1 | -6.68 | <.001 |
GAZE | -0.009 | 0.001 | 48.9 | -10.851 | <.001 | |
RPD | -0.009 | 0.001 | 81.9 | -10.165 | <.001 | |
TRT | -0.014 | 0.001 | 30574.2 | -17.575 | <.001 | |
cat C | SFD | 0 | 0.005 | 11816.8 | 0.074 | |
GAZE | 0.042 | 0.006 | 24550.4 | 7.135 | <.001 | |
RPD | 0.053 | 0.006 | 24557.6 | 8.598 | <.001 | |
TRT | 0.047 | 0.006 | 30562 | 7.61 | <.001 | |
cat A | SFD | 0.024 | 0.005 | 14829.2 | 4.775 | <.001 |
GAZE | 0.005 | 0.005 | 24538.4 | 0.911 | ||
RPD | 0.017 | 0.006 | 24551.5 | 2.999 | =.003 | |
TRT | 0.03 | 0.006 | 30390.5 | 5.134 | <.001 | |
cat N | SFD | -0.033 | 0.005 | 16004.5 | -6.633 | <.001 |
GAZE | -0.04 | 0.005 | 24541.5 | -7.359 | <.001 | |
RPD | -0.056 | 0.006 | 24551.5 | -9.993 | <.001 | |
TRT | -0.069 | 0.006 | 30564.2 | -11.752 | <.001 | |
EOL + | SFD | -0.075 | 0.005 | 18426.1 | -13.955 | <.001 |
GAZE | -0.019 | 0.006 | 24548 | -3.325 | <.001 | |
RPD | -0.018 | 0.006 | 24557.7 | -2.935 | =.003 | |
TRT | -0.068 | 0.007 | 30670.7 | -10.423 | <.001 | |
EOP + | SFD | 0.099 | 0.021 | 18442.6 | 4.674 | <.001 |
GAZE | 0.133 | 0.021 | 24554.1 | 6.261 | <.001 | |
RPD | 0.114 | 0.022 | 24558.4 | 5.184 | <.001 | |
BOL + | SFD | 0.076 | 0.008 | 18352.8 | 9.317 | <.001 |
GAZE | 0.084 | 0.008 | 24567.4 | 11.185 | <.001 | |
RPD | 0.077 | 0.006 | 24580.7 | 12.116 | <.001 | |
TRT | 0.027 | 0.007 | 30663.7 | 4.08 | <.001 | |
page | SFD | 0.004 | 0.005 | 18182 | 0.805 | |
GAZE | -0.006 | 0.005 | 24541.6 | -1.079 | ||
wpos | SFD | 0.008 | 0.003 | 13499.6 | 3.217 | =.001 |
GAZE | -0.003 | 0.003 | 24570 | -1.016 | ||
TRT | -0.02 | 0.003 | 30315.5 | -6.836 | <.001 | |
gaze_pre.word | SFD | 0.008 | 0.003 | 18465.1 | 2.601 | =.009 |
GAZE | -0.015 | 0.003 | 24596.1 | -4.401 | <.001 | |
RPD | -0.031 | 0.004 | 24578.5 | -8.629 | <.001 | |
TRT | -0.029 | 0.003 | 30682.1 | -8.425 | <.001 | |
first_pass_regression + | SFD | -0.106 | 0.003 | 18367.8 | -33.754 | <.001 |
GAZE | -0.169 | 0.004 | 24612.8 | -47.282 | <.001 | |
RPD | 0.469 | 0.004 | 24596.2 | 126.433 | <.001 | |
TRT | 0.096 | 0.004 | 30688.6 | 24.224 | <.001 | |
MRRL_version inconsistent:layout poem | TRT | 0.005 | 0.003 | 30651.7 | 1.587 | |
layout poem:cvq.p1 | SFD | -0.005 | 0.003 | 18417.6 | -2.035 | =.042 |
MRRL_version inconsistent:res.syllables | SFD | 0.017 | 0.007 | 18427.2 | 2.398 | =.016 |
GAZE | 0.02 | 0.007 | 24570.9 | 2.656 | =.008 | |
MRRL_version inconsistent:EOV + | SFD | 0.01 | 0.003 | 18425.6 | 2.883 | =.004 |
TRT | 0.009 | 0.004 | 30662.8 | 2.297 | =.022 | |
layout poem:EOV + | SFD | 0.022 | 0.004 | 18431.9 | 4.972 | <.001 |
GAZE | 0.012 | 0.005 | 24571 | 2.554 | =.011 | |
RPD | 0.013 | 0.005 | 24558.8 | 2.595 | =.009 | |
TRT | 0.027 | 0.005 | 29965.4 | 5.151 | <.001 | |
MRRL_version inconsistent:BOV + | TRT | -0.01 | 0.004 | 30665 | -2.411 | =.016 |
layout poem:BOV + | SFD | -0.023 | 0.006 | 18446.7 | -3.752 | <.001 |
GAZE | -0.012 | 0.006 | 24570 | -1.979 | =.048 | |
TRT | -0.015 | 0.005 | 30647.2 | -2.899 | =.004 | |
MRRL_version inconsistent:trial | TRT | -0.014 | 0.003 | 30577.5 | -4.303 | <.001 |
layout poem:trial | TRT | -0.007 | 0.003 | 30205.9 | -2.242 | =.025 |
cvq.p1:EOL + | GAZE | -0.008 | 0.004 | 24546.5 | -2.065 | =.039 |
page:wpos | SFD | -0.009 | 0.004 | 18112.7 | -2.244 | =.025 |
GAZE | -0.015 | 0.005 | 24559.3 | -3.291 | =.001 | |
MRRL_version inconsistent:layout poem:trial | TRT | -0.013 | 0.003 | 29890.3 | -4.053 | <.001 |
Estimate | se | z | p | |
(Intercept) | -0.599 | 0.198 | -3.025 | =.002 |
MRRL_version inconsistent | -0.004 | 0.023 | -0.162 | |
layout poem | -0.066 | 0.030 | -2.173 | =.03 |
res.cvq | -0.075 | 0.018 | -4.260 | <.001 |
res.syllables | 0.079 | 0.040 | 1.971 | =.049 |
EOV + | 0.091 | 0.026 | 3.542 | <.001 |
BOV + | 0.044 | 0.162 | 0.271 | |
trial | 0.059 | 0.013 | 4.560 | <.001 |
word_length | -0.386 | 0.016 | -24.477 | <.001 |
log.freq | 0.005 | 0.006 | 0.870 | |
cat C | 0.243 | 0.041 | 5.939 | <.001 |
cat A | -0.041 | 0.038 | -1.068 | |
cat N | -0.135 | 0.051 | -2.658 | =.008 |
EOL + | -0.350 | 0.031 | -11.297 | <.001 |
EOP + | -0.043 | 0.156 | -0.273 | |
BOL + | 0.809 | 0.163 | 4.968 | <.001 |
page | 0.144 | 0.024 | 6.117 | <.001 |
wpos | -0.020 | 0.013 | -1.500 | |
gaze_pre.word | -0.092 | 0.014 | -6.446 | <.001 |
MRRL_version inconsistent:layout poem | -0.027 | 0.023 | -1.200 | |
MRRL_version inconsistent:res.cvq | -0.011 | 0.017 | -0.634 | |
layout poem:res.cvq | -0.015 | 0.017 | -0.867 | |
MRRL_version inconsistent:res.syllables | 0.006 | 0.038 | 0.160 | |
layout poem:res.syllables | 0.068 | 0.038 | 1.775 | =.076 |
MRRL_version inconsistent:EOV + | -0.017 | 0.019 | -0.868 | |
layout poem:EOV + | 0.131 | 0.025 | 5.240 | <.001 |
MRRL_version inconsistent:BOV + | -0.015 | 0.016 | -0.933 | |
layout poem:BOV + | -0.221 | 0.162 | -1.366 | |
MRRL_version inconsistent:trial | 0.005 | 0.014 | 0.385 | |
layout poem:trial | 0.022 | 0.014 | 1.565 | |
page:wpos | -0.013 | 0.023 | -0.590 | |
word_length:BOL + | -0.095 | 0.016 | -6.084 | <.001 |
log.freq:BOL + | -0.015 | 0.006 | -2.559 | =.01 |
cat C:BOL + | 0.120 | 0.040 | 2.976 | =.003 |
cat A:BOL + | 0.099 | 0.038 | 2.614 | =.009 |
cat N:BOL + | -0.221 | 0.050 | -4.406 | <.001 |
layout poem:BOL + | 0.086 | 0.162 | 0.531 | |
layout poem:page | 0.060 | 0.024 | 2.529 | =.011 |
layout poem:wpos | 0.049 | 0.013 | 3.661 | <.001 |
MRRL_version inconsistent:layout poem:res.cvq | 0.002 | 0.017 | 0.096 | |
MRRL_version inconsistent:layout poem:res.syllables | -0.077 | 0.038 | -2.027 | =.043 |
MRRL_version inconsistent:layout poem:EOV + | -0.036 | 0.019 | -1.892 | =.058 |
MRRL_version inconsistent:layout poem:BOV + | 0.018 | 0.016 | 1.126 | |
MRRL_version inconsistent:layout poem:trial | 0.041 | 0.014 | 2.937 | =.003 |
Estimate | se | df | t | p | |
(Intercept) | 0.712 | 0.189 | 505.8 | 3.775 | <.001 |
anomaly_type metric | -0.086 | 0.124 | 62.2 | -0.696 | |
anomaly_type r&m | 0.429 | 0.117 | 105.5 | 3.651 | <.001 |
anomaly_type rhyme | -0.109 | 0.114 | 52.3 | -0.964 | |
layout poem | 0.264 | 0.087 | 58.8 | 3.046 | =.003 |
MRRL_version inconsistent | 0.064 | 0.057 | 59.8 | 1.126 | |
wpos | 0.264 | 0.142 | 1149.8 | 1.859 | =.063 |
page | -0.204 | 0.105 | 1158.6 | -1.938 | =.053 |
trial | 0.001 | 0.042 | 910.2 | 0.015 | |
anomaly_type metric:layout poem | 0.010 | 0.115 | 1106.2 | 0.083 | |
anomaly_type r&m:layout poem | 0.301 | 0.075 | 1171.4 | 4.031 | <.001 |
anomaly_type rhyme:layout poem | -0.235 | 0.090 | 1074.8 | -2.615 | =.009 |
anomaly_type metric:MRRL_version inconsistent | -0.177 | 0.096 | 1032.8 | -1.840 | =.066 |
anomaly_type r&m:MRRL_version inconsistent | 0.026 | 0.069 | 1136.4 | 0.382 | |
anomaly_type rhyme:MRRL_version inconsistent | 0.229 | 0.088 | 1065.5 | 2.610 | =.009 |
layout poem:MRRL_version inconsistent | 0.029 | 0.046 | 1160.8 | 0.624 | |
wpos:page | -0.181 | 0.087 | 1156.8 | -2.075 | =.038 |
anomaly_type metric:layout poem:MRRL_version inconsistent | -0.071 | 0.097 | 1007.1 | -0.737 | |
anomaly_type r&m:layout poem:MRRL_version inconsistent | 0.184 | 0.069 | 1156.9 | 2.658 | =.008 |
anomaly_type rhyme:layout poem:MRRL_version inconsistent | -0.033 | 0.087 | 1137.5 | -0.380 |
Estimate | se | df | t | p | |
(Intercept) | 1.352 | 0.168 | 178.9 | 8.049 | <.001 |
anomaly_type metric | 0.090 | 0.106 | 39.6 | 0.850 | |
anomaly_type r&m | -0.076 | 0.103 | 80.2 | -0.739 | |
anomaly_type rhyme | 0.068 | 0.085 | 47.8 | 0.803 | |
layout poem | -0.071 | 0.042 | 472.1 | -1.700 | =.09 |
MRRL_version inconsistent | 0.035 | 0.048 | 43.6 | 0.718 | |
wpos | -0.448 | 0.107 | 5562.4 | -4.183 | <.001 |
page | 0.169 | 0.079 | 5301.5 | 2.129 | =.033 |
trial | 0.010 | 0.032 | 2190.4 | 0.327 | |
anomaly_type metric:layout poem | -0.138 | 0.088 | 3578.6 | -1.576 | |
anomaly_type r&m:layout poem | 0.124 | 0.056 | 6815.5 | 2.197 | =.028 |
anomaly_type rhyme:layout poem | 0.023 | 0.067 | 3918.2 | 0.343 | |
anomaly_type metric:MRRL_version inconsistent | 0.033 | 0.073 | 2876.4 | 0.456 | |
anomaly_type r&m:MRRL_version inconsistent | 0.107 | 0.052 | 5859.9 | 2.049 | =.041 |
anomaly_type rhyme:MRRL_version inconsistent | -0.098 | 0.065 | 3429.6 | -1.496 | |
layout poem:MRRL_version inconsistent | -0.064 | 0.035 | 5320.3 | -1.828 | =.068 |
wpos:page | 0.185 | 0.066 | 7200.4 | 2.828 | =.005 |
anomaly_type metric:layout poem:MRRL_version inconsistent | -0.154 | 0.073 | 2583.3 | -2.100 | =.036 |
anomaly_type r&m:layout poem:MRRL_version inconsistent | -0.012 | 0.052 | 6419.1 | -0.235 | |
anomaly_type rhyme:layout poem:MRRL_version inconsistent | 0.050 | 0.065 | 5027.6 | 0.776 |
Copyright © 2021. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Share and Cite
Beck, J.; Konieczny, L. Rhythmic Subvocalization: An Eye-Tracking Study on Silent Poetry Reading. J. Eye Mov. Res. 2020, 13, 1-40. https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.13.3.5
Beck J, Konieczny L. Rhythmic Subvocalization: An Eye-Tracking Study on Silent Poetry Reading. Journal of Eye Movement Research. 2020; 13(3):1-40. https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.13.3.5
Chicago/Turabian StyleBeck, Judith, and Lars Konieczny. 2020. "Rhythmic Subvocalization: An Eye-Tracking Study on Silent Poetry Reading" Journal of Eye Movement Research 13, no. 3: 1-40. https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.13.3.5
APA StyleBeck, J., & Konieczny, L. (2020). Rhythmic Subvocalization: An Eye-Tracking Study on Silent Poetry Reading. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 13(3), 1-40. https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.13.3.5