Next Article in Journal
Do Weak Readers in Rural India Automatically Read Same Language Subtitles on Bollywood Films? An Eye Gaze Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Book of Abstracts of the 21th European Conference on Eye Movements in Leicester 2022
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JEMR
Volume 15
Issue 5
10.16910/jemr.15.5.3
jemr-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Journal of Eye Movement Research is published by MDPI from Volume 18 Issue 1 (2025). Previous articles were published by another publisher in Open Access under a CC-BY (or CC-BY-NC-ND) licence, and they are hosted by MDPI on mdpi.com as a courtesy and upon agreement with Bern Open Publishing (BOP).
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Mechanism of Word Satiation in Tibetan Reading: Evidence from Eye Movements

by
Xuling Li
1,†,
Man Zeng
1,†,
Lei Gao
1,
Shan Li
1,
Zibei Niu
1,
Danhui Wang
1,
Tianzhi Li
1,
Xuejun Bai
2 and
Xiaolei Gao
1,*
1
Tibet University, Lhasa, China
2
Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
The first two authors equally contributed to the first authorship.
J. Eye Mov. Res. 2022, 15(5), 1-12; https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.15.5.3
Submission received: 29 May 2022 / Published: 1 November 2022
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Two eye-tracking experiments were used to investigate the mechanism of word satiation in Tibetan reading. The results revealed that, at a low repetition level, gaze duration and total fixation duration in the semantically unrelated condition were significantly longer than in the semantically related condition; at a medium repetition level, reaction time in the semantically related condition was significantly longer than in the semantically unrelated condition; at a high repetition level, the total fixation duration and reaction time in the semantically related condition were significantly longer than in the semantically unrelated condition. However, fixation duration and reaction time showed no significant difference between the similar and dissimilar orthography at any repetition level. These findings imply that there are semantic priming effects in Tibetan reading at a low repetition level, but semantic satiation effects at greater repetition levels, which occur in the late stage of lexical processing.

Introduction

It is common in everyday life for “familiar words to become strange”, a phenomenon termed word satiation. This means that if one stares at a particular word for an extended period, one may begin to feel strange and eventually lose recognition of it (Esposito & Pelton, 1971). How does word satiation emerge and what is its mechanism? Researchers mainly hold two different views on this, namely the semantic satiation hypothesis and the perceptual satiation hypothesis. The former proposes that satiation effects result from the loss of words’ semantics after readers place constant attention on them (Smith, 1984), while the latter proposes that satiation effects are caused by the loss of words’ morphology after readers’ prolonged visual inspection (Cheng & Lan, 2009).
In category matching tasks, semantic satiation has been identified in English (Black, 2001; Smith, 1984; Smith & Klein, 1990), but not in Chinese (Zou, 2020). Additionally, in lexical decision tasks, orthographic satiation has been observed in Chinese (Cheng & Lan, 2009; Cheng & Lin, 2012), but not in English (Neely, 1977a). These examples demonstrate that even when performing the same task in multiple languages, the results are inconsistent. As an alphabetic script, English is composed of letters and written linearly. Its phonology will be activated by orthography directly, then the orthography and phonology access the semantics simultaneously. In turn, Chinese is a type of logographic writing that is stereoscopic and non-linear in spatial arrangement (Ma & Chuang, 2015). It relies on an orthography-semantics path and requires the “gestalt organization” of orthography (Jia & Zhang, 2013). Because of the differences in writing styles between English and Chinese, English word satiation is likely to be semantic, whereas Chinese word satiation is likely to be orthographic at the perceptual level. Tibetan is a member of the SinoTibetan language family, as well as the alphabetic writing system. Tibetan consists of four vowels, thirty consonants, and five reverse consonants. These letters combine to create syllables, the fundamental unit of Tibetan writing. Tibetan syllable’s structure is similar to that of the Chinese language. It is written around a “base consonant letter” appended before and after and written up and down, displaying a certain stereoscopic quality. For example, the Tibetan syllable “Jemr 15 00032 i001” (tie) consists of six consonants and one vowel. Among them, “Jemr 15 00032 i002” is the superscribed vowel, “ག” is the base consonant letter, “བ” is the prefix consonant letter, “ས” is the superscribed consonant letter, “Jemr 15 00032 i003” is the sub-joined consonant letter, “ག” is the suffix consonant letter, and “ས” is the post suffix consonant letter. The tsheg, “་”, acts as a separator between syllables. Tibetan written structure also shows the features of from left to right linear development, which is similar to English (Wang et al., 2021; Gao et al., 2020). An illustration from Tibetan is the sentence, “Jemr 15 00032 i004” (The horse’s limbs were tied by ropes). As such, Tibetan has common elements with both English and Chinese. To the best of our knowledge, no research on the process of word satiation in Tibetan reading has been conducted yet.
Semantic satiation was hypothesized by Lambert (1960) using the semantic differential scale; however, it was not found by Neely (1977a) using the lexical decision task. Additionally, Esposito (1987) discovered that there was perceptual satiation in a tachistoscopic search task. Following these studies, researchers investigated the satiation phenomenon in the category matching task. After 30 repetitions of the priming word, the reaction time of participants became significantly longer, indicating that semantic satiation had occurred (Smith, 1984; Smith & Klein, 1990). Semantic satiation, on the other hand, was not found in the improved category matching task (the manner of repetition changed from visual flashing with verbal repetition to verbal repetition or auditory repetition) (Frenck-Mestre et al., 1997; Pilotti et al., 1997). Furthermore, in a lexical decision task involving native Mandarin speakers reading Chinese, orthographic satiation was identified at the perceptual level (Cheng & Lan, 2009; Cheng & Lin, 2012). In contrast, in the category matching exam, English-Chinese bilinguals who read Chinese reported semantic satiation (Zhang et al., 2014). In summary, whether reading English or Chinese, satiation effects differ depending on the task. This means that various tasks in one language result in distinct satiation effects.
The above-mentioned tasks belong to the paradigms of behavioral experimental methods. These methods are offline (or non-real-time) measures that conceal cognitive processing details of language (Wang & Xiao, 2020). Therefore, using them makes it difficult not only to control irrelevant variables such as distraction (Mooneyham et al., 2016), but also to adapt the high-speed integrated characteristics of language processing because they consider accuracy and reaction time as dependent variables (Wang & Cai, 2010). By comparison, eye-tracking technology belongs to online (or real-time) measures (Rayner, 2009). Hence, not only can it control irrelevant variables such as distraction, but also probe the underlying language cognitive processing during reading (Burch et al., 2017; Carrol & Conklin, 2015; Fan & Reilly, 2020; Gidlöf et al., 2013; Pannasch et al., 2008). Furthermore, since word satiation is based on the perception of the word (Tong & Yan, 2013) and primarily relies on visual channels (Han, 2000), this technology is the most effective in investigating visual information processing (Xu & Wang, 2020). Based on these features, it may be more advantageous for examining the phenomenon of word satiation in reading (Traxler et al., 2012).
Therefore, this study adopted eye-tracking technology and designed two experiments to investigate the mechanism of word satiation in Tibetan reading. Experiment 1 manipulated two variables—repetition level and semantic relatedness—to investigate whether the word satiation originates from the loss of words’ semantics (i.e., semantic satiation). Experiment 2 manipulated two variables—repetition level and orthographic similarity—to investigate whether word satiation results from the loss of words’ morphology at the perceptual level (i.e., perceptual satiation). Previous studies had found that a priming effect occurred at a low repetition level; in contrast, no priming effect emerged or even reversed at a high repetition level. Due to the prolonged reaction time and decreased accuracy, satiation effects were triggered at the time (Tian & Huber, 2010). Researchers discovered that in category matching tasks, the reaction time in the semantically matching condition (e.g., fruit-apple) was longer than in the semantically mismatching one (e.g., fruit-ant), and that there was a semantic satiation effect (Smith, 1984; Smith & Klein, 1990). Therefore, the following hypotheses were proposed in this study: (1) at a low repetition level, if fixation duration or reaction time are significantly shorter in the semantically related or orthographically similar conditions than in the semantically unrelated or orthographically dissimilar conditions, there will be semantic or orthographic priming effects; (2) at a higher repetition level, if fixation duration or reaction time is significantly longer in the semantically relevant or the orthographically similar conditions than in the semantically unrelated or orthographically dissimilar ones, there will be semantic or orthographic satiation effects.

Experiment 1: Eye Movement-Based Research of Semantic Satiation in Tibetan Reading

This experiment used the eye-movement recording method combined with a category decision task for participants to determine whether the priming word and the target word were words of the same category, a task decision process that involves the processing of semantic information about the words. Two variables, repetition level and semantic relatedness, were manipulated to examine whether word satiation in Tibetan reading originated from a loss of semantic information about the words, i.e., whether it was semantic satiation.

Participants

A total of 72 Tibetan university undergraduates who were native Tibetan speakers (37 males, M-age = 20.99) were recruited, with a Tibetan average score of 132.29 on the university entrance examination. They were all righthanded and had normal or corrected-to-normal vision, and no visual problems, including astigmatism and strabismus. Before the experiment, informed consent was obtained from all participants. After the experiment, all of them received 30 yuan as a reward.

Design

A 2 (semantic relatedness: related, unrelated) × 3 (repetition level: low, medium, high) within-subject experimental design was adopted. The priming word was repeated 2-4 times at a low repetition level, 12-14 times at a medium repetition level, and 22-24 times at a high repetition level.

Materials

Selection of experimental materials. Referring to Tian and Huber (2010), 210 English common words were selected and translated into Tibetan. All words were 2.03 characters long on average and were divided into 70 groups, each group including a priming word and two target words (semantically related or unrelated to the priming words). There were respectively 70 semantically related and unrelated word pairs. Samples of the experimental materials are shown in Table 1.
Evaluation of experimental materials. On a 5-point scale, we asked 20 homogeneous participants who did not take part in the formal study to score the familiarity of 210 words, the semantic relatedness of 140-word pairs (half semantically related, half semantically unrelated), and the orthographic similarity of 140-word pairs. Finally, 60 groups of words (practice materials: 6 groups; formal experimental materials: 54 groups) were selected as experimental materials. The evaluation results are shown in Table 2. Furthermore, t-test of semantic relatedness between semantically related and semantically unrelated word pairs was t118 = 31.82, p < 0.001. The evaluation results revealed that the experimental materials were simple, the orthography of all word pairs was not similar, the semantic relatedness of semantically related word pairs was high, and the semantic relatedness of semantically unrelated word pairs was low. Thus, these materials were appropriate for our experimental requirements.
Arrangement of experimental materials. Each trial included six levels, which were divided into six blocks of 60 trials each. Each participant read one block, and after each trial, they assessed the semantic relatedness of the priming word and the target word. Therefore, each participant read a total of 60 trials.

Apparatus

The SR Research Eyelink 1000 Plus eye tracker (sampling rate = 1000 Hz) was used to record eye movements. The materials were shown on a 24.5-inch DELL monitor (240 Hz sampling rate; 1920 × 1080 pixels resolution). The distance between the participants’ eyes and the screen was approximately 65 centimeters. Microsoft Himalaya 36 typeface was used to show the information.

Procedure

Each participant was tested individually. After entering the laboratory, participants were instructed to familiarize themselves with the surroundings before taking their assigned seat. The researcher then simply introduced the experimental procedure. Prior to the experiment, viewing positions were calibrated with a 3-point grid (error 0.25°) to ensure that the eye tracker could accurately record the participants’ eye movement trajectory (Bai et al., 2017; Gao et al., 2020). Instructions were displayed on the test machine’s screen after a successful calibration. The researcher next explained the requirements of the experiment to the participants. The experiment took about 20 minutes. The procedure (a single experimental trial) is shown in Figure 1.

Results

In line with previous research (Hyönä et al., 2020; Huestegge, 2010; Tang et al., 2016; Tong, 2015; Wu et al., 2016), the analyzed indicators, including three eye movement measures and the reaction time, are as follows:
(1) first fixation duration (FFD) refers to the duration of the first fixation on an area during first pass reading; (2) gaze duration (GD) refers to the sum of all fixations on an area from first entering the area until leaving it during first pass reading; (3) total fixation duration (TFD) refers to the sum of all fixations on a region; (4) reaction time (RT) refers to the time between a presentation (simultaneous presentation of the priming word and the target word) and a response. The FFD and GD represent the early stage of lexical processing, while the TFD represents the late stage (Magyari et al., 2020; Yan et al., 2013).
Each trial was divided into two areas of interest, with the priming word being the first and the target word being the second. The data on the target words were analyzed using the linear mixed model (LMM) and the lme4 package in the R environment (R Core Team, 2021; Bates et al., 2015). The model enhanced the data utilization rate by incorporating all the original data and improved the reliability of the results by using the maximum random effect structure and integrating the participant and item effects. All indicators were log-transformed, and the regression coefficient (b), standard error (SE) and t value (t = b/SE) are reported in the results. If |t| > 1.96, it means p < 0.05.
Six participants were excluded (the accuracy rate was less than 85%), and the average accuracy rate for the remaining participants was 93%. To filter data, the following exclusion criteria were used (Reingold et al., 2010; Slattery et al., 2011): (1) participants pressed the key prematurely or incorrectly during the experiment, which resulted in an interruption; (2) invalid data because of loss of tracking; (3) the single fixation duration was shorter than 80ms or longer than 1200ms. In total, 16% of the data were removed before conducting the analysis. The means and standard errors of indicators under all conditions are shown in Table 3. The results of statistical analysis are shown in Table 4.
As shown in Table 4, the main effect of semantic relatedness was significant in RT, and the RT was significantly longer in the semantically related condition than in the semantically unrelated condition (b = 2.65, SE = 1.16, t = 2.29). Furthermore, the main effect of the repetition level was significant in the FFD, GD and RT (|t|s > 1.96, ps < 0.05). The FFD and GD were significantly longer at a low repetition level than at medium and high repetition levels, and the RT was significantly longer at a high repetition level than at low and medium repetition levels. Additionally, significant interaction between semantic relatedness and repetition level emerged in GD, TFD and RT (|t|s > 1.96, ps < 0.05). Further analysis found that at a low repetition level, there were significantly longer GD (b = 7.06, SE = 2.77, t = 2.55) and TFD (b = 1.22, SE = 2.73, t = 4.48) in the semantically unrelated condition than in the semantically related one; at a medium repetition level, the RT in the semantically related condition was significantly longer than that in the semantically unrelated one (b = 4.03, SE = 1.89, t = 2.13); at a high repetition level, there were significantly longer TFD (b = 5.42, SE = 2.76, t = 1.97) and RT (b = 6.15, SE = 1.91, t = 3.23) in the semantically related condition than in the semantically unrelated condition.
In summary, the interaction between semantic relatedness and repetition level differed significantly in terms of GD, TFD, and RT. There was a semantic priming effect in GD and TFD at a low repetition level (2 to 4 times), semantic satiation effects in RT at a medium repetition level (12 to 14 times) and semantic satiation effects in TFD and RT at a high repetition level (22 to 24 times). This finding revealed that there were effects of semantic priming and semantic satiation during lexical processing in Tibetan reading; furthermore, the satiation effect occurred in the late stage.

Experiment 2: Eye Movement-Based Research of Perceptual Word Satiation in Tibetan Reading

An orthographic similarity decision task with eyemovement recording method was used in this experiment, in which participants were asked to determine the orthographic similarity between the priming and target words. It was explored if word satiation in Tibetan reading is caused by a loss of word perceptual morphological information, or whether it is perceptual satiation, by controlling two variables: repetition level and orthographic similarity.

Participants

Same as in Experiment 1.

Design

A 2 (orthographic similarity: similar, dissimilar) × 3 (repetition level: low, medium, high) within-subject experimental design was used. The repetition levels were consistent with those in Experiment 1.

Materials

Selection of experimental materials. We selected 210 common words from daily Tibetan expressions, with an average word length of 2.03 characters. The 210 words were divided into 70 groups. Each group included a priming word and two target words (similar or dissimilar orthography to the priming word). Examples of experimental materials are shown in Table 5.
Evaluation of experimental materials. Similarly, we invited 20 homogenous participants who did not participate in the formal experiment to rate the familiarity of 210 words, the orthographic similarity of 140 word pairs (half with similar orthography, half with different orthography), and the semantic relatedness of 140 word pairs on a 5-point scale. Finally, 60 groups of words were employed as experimental materials (practice materials: 6 groups, formal experimental materials: 54 groups). The evaluation results are shown in Table 6. Additionally, t-test of semantic relatedness between semantically related and semantically unrelated word pairs was t118 = 49.52, p < 0.001, which was significant. The evaluation results showed that the experimental materials were simple, and that the semantics of all word pairs were irrelevant; word pairings of comparable orthography had high similarity, whereas word pairs with diverse orthography had low similarity. These experimental materials were appropriate for our requirements. The arrangement of experimental materials is identical to Experiment 1.

Apparatus and Procedure

Same as in Experiment 1.

Results

Six participants were excluded (4 participants’ accuracy rate was less than 70%, and two participants dropped out halfway), and the average accuracy rate of the remaining participants was 92%. The data deletion standard was identical to Experiment 1, and the deleted data accounted for approximately 13% of the total data. The analysis method was the same as in Experiment 1. Means and standard errors of all indicators in different conditions are shown in Table 7. The results of statistical analysis are shown in Table 8.
The results indicate that the main effect of orthographic similarity was significant in FFD (b = 0.07, SE = 0.02, t = 4.50) and RT (b = 0.19, SE = 0.01, t = 17.53). The FFD was significantly longer in the orthographic dissimilar condition than in the orthographic similar one, and the RT was significantly longer in the orthographic similar condition than in the orthographic dissimilar one. The main effect of the repetition level was significant in FFD and TFD (|t|s > 1.96, ps < 0.05), as well. The FFD was significantly longer at a low repetition level than at medium and high repetition levels. The TFD at medium and high repetition levels was significantly longer than at a low repetition level. There was no significant interaction between orthographic similarity and repetition level on all indicators (|t|s < 1.96, ps > 0.05).
Overall, the results demonstrated that in Tibetan reading, there was no orthographic priming or orthographic satiation effect during lexical processing.

Discussion

The Mechanism of Word Satiation in Tibetan Reading

This study has observed a semantic priming effect in Tibetan reading at low repetition levels, but semantic satiation effects at high repetition levels. The reasons for this result may be the following: (1) according to the semantic network activation model, in semantic memory, concepts are represented in the form of nodes which interconnect to form a semantic network. Therefore, when one conceptual node is activated, other interconnected nodes are also activated (Collins & Quillian, 1970). When priming words are presented, their conceptual nodes are activated, and then target words’ (semantically related to the priming words) semantics are also activated. Therefore, the activation will further be strengthened at a low repetition level, leading to semantic priming effects. However, if the priming words are repeated frequently over a short period of time, the internal semantic representation will be heavily reactivated, resulting in fatigue in the semantic representation of the priming words. Not only will it be transmitted to the connected concept nodes but will also inhibit the semantic extraction of words which are semantically related to the priming word (Neely, 1977b). The semantic priming effects will be decreased or perhaps reversed at this time, resulting in the emergence of the semantic satiation effect (Smith, 1984); (2) furthermore, the semantic satiation effect is not merely a reversal of the semantic priming effect, but may also be explained using cognitive neuroscience. It was stated that, if a stimulus is repeated over a short amount of time, the nervous system will be activated for a longer time. The constant activation will cause synaptic connections to be inhibited, resulting in a temporary loss of communication between transmitting and receiving neurons (Huber & O’Reilly, 2003; Tian & Huber, 2010; Tian & Huber, 2013). The nervous system will be exhausted after repeatedly responding to priming words. This tiredness contributes to prolonged RT and GD on target words when they are presented. Following this, there is a semantic satiation effect. The results of this study are consistent in English reading, but not in Chinese reading (Black, 2001; Kounios et al., 2000; Lambert & Jakobovits, 1960; Lewis & Ellis, 2000). Semantic satiation effects are the most common finding in English reading studies. The reason for this is that there is a precise orthography-to-phonology correspondence when reading alphabetic writing like English. The orthography will activate the phonology, and both the orthography and the phonology will access the semantics concurrently so that the word satiation in English reading tends to be semantic satiation. Tibetan and English, both using alphabetic writing, may demonstrate the commonality of the word satiation process. Inconsistently, orthographic satiation is the principal result of Chinese reading research (Cheng & Lan, 2009; Cheng & Lin, 2012). The reason is that Chinese characters are logographic writing that only represents morphemes, not syllables (Wang et al., 2021), and the Chinese character is a hierarchical structure system built by strokes and components (Li, 2021). Therefore, there is no consistent orthography-to-phonology mapping in Chinese. Furthermore, Chinese morphemes and radicals are densely packed with semantic information (Peng et al., 1999). Consequently, readers are more reliant on “the route of orthography-to-semantics,” since it is simple to “see the orthography and know the semantics” but harder to “see the orthography and know the phonology” (Jia & Zhang, 2013). Hence, the processing of Chinese characters relies more on orthogra-phy, and orthographic satiation is more likely to occur.

The Stage of Semantic Satiation Effects in Tibetan Reading

Studies have found that the semantic satiation effect in Tibetan reading was mainly significant on TFD. The TFD was sensitive to slower and longer cognitive pro-cessing (Holmqvist et al., 2011), reflecting the late pro-cessing stage. Therefore, the semantic satiation effect in Tibetan reading mainly occurs in the late stage of lexical processing. The reasons may be as follows: first, the mate-rials (words) are highly familiar and commonly used in the daily life of native Tibetans. Readers need less cognitive resources when processing these words and, consequently, it takes a long time for them to reach satiation. Accord-ingly, the semantic satiation effect is difficult to occur in the early stage of lexical processing, and only exists in the relatively later stage of processing. Second, according to cognitive load theory, when cognitive resources are lim-ited, satiation operations (repetition of priming words) in-crease participants’ task and cognition loads, resulting in cognitive resource competition and attentive distribution problems, which are reflected in reduced judgment task ef-ficiency and the cost of response delay (Sweller, 1988). Tong (2015) also pointed out that the phenomenon of word satiation is inextricably connected to attention whose re-duction would be delayed with trigger satiation. In this study, the distributed attention resources reduced after the high repetition of the priming word. When the target words semantically related to the priming words were presented, readers needed to reactivate the semantics without quick response, resulting in the delay of semantic satiation. Therefore, the semantic satiation was triggered in the late stage of lexical processing.

Conclusions

Word satiation in Tibetan reading does not emerge at the perceptual level of orthographic satiation but is semantic satiation. Moreover, semantic satiation is triggered in the late stage of lexical processing.
The findings of this study are compatible with those for English, but not with those for Chinese. The following three recommendations are based on these findings. First, researchers can further explore whether the word satiation varies from language to language. Second, people can utilize the word satiation mechanism to avoid linguistic recognition and writing faults, hence boosting reading and writing efficiency. Finally, we recommend that teachers should improve their teaching tactics based on language satiation principles. Teachers typically penalize pupils for repeatedly copying words many times. From the perspective of satiation, this strategy is very time-consuming for students and slows down their learning efficiency. Therefore, they can ask students to copy words 2 to 4 times at a low repetition level, leading to better teaching outcomes.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31860280, 32260204). We thank all authors who contributed to the conception and design of this study. We appreciate Shan Li, Zibei Niu, and Danhui Wang’s help with the preparation of the study’s materials, data collection, and analysis. Additionally, we are very grateful Xiuling Li and Zeng Man for drafting the manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the assistance in revising the manuscript that Lei Gao, Tianzhi Li, Xuejun Bai, and Xiaolei Gao provided. The funding and resources provided by Xiaolei Gao are greatly appreciated.

Conflicts of Interest

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study was approved by Ethics Committee of Psychology of Tibet Autonomous Region. The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

References

  1. Bai, X. J., X. L. Gao, L. Gao, and Y. S. Wang. 2017. An eye movement study on the perceptual span in reading Tibetan language. Psychologica Acta Sinica 49, 5: 569–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Bates, D., M. Machler, B. Bolker, and S. Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using Ime4. Journal of Statistical Software 67, 1: 1–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Black, S. R. 2001. Semantic satiation and lexical ambiguity resolution. The American Journal of Psychology 114, 4: 493–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Burch, M., L. Chuang, A. Duchowski, D. Weiskopf, and R. Groner. 2017. Eye Tracking and Visualization: Introduction to the Special Thematic Issue of the Journal of Eye Movement Research. Journal of Eye Movement Research 10, 5: 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Carrol, G., and K. Conklin. 2015. Eye-tracking multiword units: Some methodological questions. Journal of Eye Movement Research 7, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Cheng, C. M., and Y. H. Lan. 2009. An implicit test of Chinese orthographic satiation. Reading & Writing 24, 1: 55–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Cheng, C. M., and S. Y. Lin. 2012. Chinese orthographic decomposition and logographic structure. Reading and Writing 26, 7: 1111–1131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Collins, A. M., and M. R. Quillian. 1970. Facilitating retrieval from semantic memory: The effect of repeating part of an inference. Acta Psychologica 33, 368: 304–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Esposito, N. J. 1987. Semantic satiation as a perceptual phenomenon. Perceptual & Motor Skills (2): 487–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Esposito, N. J., and L. H. Pelton. 1971. Review of the measurement of semantic satiation. Psychological Bulletin 75, 5: 330–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Fan, X., and R. Reilly. 2020. Reading development at the text level: An investigation of surprisal and embeddingbased text similarity effects on eyemovements in Chinese early readers. Journal of Eye Movement Research 13, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Frenck-Mestre, C., M. Besson, and J. Pynte. 1997. Finding the Locus of Semantic Satiation: An Electrophysiological Attempt. Brain and Language 57, 3: 406–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Gao, X. L., X. W. Li, M. Sun, X. J. Bai, and L. Gao. 2020. The word frequency effect of fovea and its effect on the preview effect of parafovea in Tibetan reading. Acta Psychologica Sinica 52, 10: 1143–1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gidlöf, K., A. Wallin, R. Dewhurst, and K. Holmqvist. 2013. Using Eye Tracking to Trace a Cognitive Process: Gaze Behaviour During Decision Making in a Natural Environment. Journal of Eye Movement Research 6, 1: 613–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Han, Y. C. 2000. The development of eye tracker and eye movement experiment. Journal of Psychological Science 23, 04: 71–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Holmqvist, K., M. Nyström, R. Andersson, R. Dewhurst, H. Jarodzka, and J. Van de Weijer. 2011. Eye tracking: A comprehensive guide to methods and measures. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  17. Huber, D. E., and R. C. O’Reilly. 2003. Persistence and accommodation in short-term priming and other perceptual paradigms: Temporal segregation through synaptic depression. Cognitive Science 27, 3: 403–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Huestegge, L. 2010. Effects of Vowel Length on Gaze Durations in Silent and Oral Reading. Journal of Eye Movement Research 3, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hyönä, J., A. Pollatsek, M. Koski, and H. Olkoniemi. 2020. An eye-tracking study of reading long and short novel and lexicalized compound words. Journal of Eye Movement Research 13, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Jia, J. R., and D. X. Zhang. 2013. Semantic Satiation and Its Cognitive Mechanism. Advances in Psychological Science 21, 4: 615–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kounios, J., S. A. Kotz, and P. J. Holcomb. 2000. On the locus of the semantic satiation effect: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Memory & Cognition 28, 8: 1366–1377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lambert, W. E., and L. A. Jakobovits. 1960. Verbal satiation and changes in the intensity of meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology 60, 6: 376–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Lewis, M. B., and H. D. Ellis. 2000. Satiation in name and face recognition. Memory & Cognition 28, 5: 783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Li, S. K. 2021. Formation of “也” and Two Approaches of Interpreting Chinese Characters: Starting from Concept or from Linguistic Data. Jilin University Journal Social Sciences Edition 61, 6: 230–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ma, M. Y., and H. C. Chuang. 2015. How form and structure of Chinese characters affect eye movement control. Journal of Eye Movement Research 8, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Magyari, L., A. Mangen, A. Kuzmičová, A. M. Jacobs, and J. Lüdtke. 2020. Eye movements and mental imagery during reading of literary texts with different narrative styles. Journal of Eye Movement Research 13, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Mooneyham, B. W., A. J. Mrazek, K. L. Mrazek, and J. W. Schooler. 2016. States of mind: Characterizing the neural bases of focus and mind-wandering through dynamic functional connectivity. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 29, 3: 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Neely, J. H. 1977a. The effects of visual and verbal satiation on a lexical decision task. American Journal of Psychology 90, 3: 447–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Neely, J. H. 1977b. Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention. J.exp.psychol.gen 106, 3: 226–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Pannasch, S., J. R. Helmert, K. Roth, A. K. Herbold, and H. Walter. 2008. Visual fixation durations and saccade amplitudes: Shifting relationship in a variety of conditions. Journal of Eye Movement Research 2, 2: 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Peng, D. L., G. S. Ding, C. M. Wang, M. Taft, and X. P. Zhu. 1999. The processing of Chinese reversal words—The role of morphemes in lexical access. Acta Psychologica Sinica 31, 01: 36–46. Retrieved from https://jounal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/Y1999/V31/I1/36.
  32. Pilotti, M., J. S. Antrobus, and M. Duff. 1997. The effect of presemantic acoustic adaptation on semantic “satiation”. Memory & Cognition 25, 3: 305–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Prochwicz, K. 2010. Semantic satiation in schizophrenia. The role of valence of stimuli. Archives of Psychiatry & Psychotherapy 12, 4: 23–27. Retrieved from https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Semantic-satiation-in-schizophrenia-.-The-role-of-Prochwicz/36fce129db17d56e374f2a827a9f8ed88bca d822.
  34. R Core Team. 2021. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. Retrieved from https://www.Rproject.org/.
  35. Rayner, K. 2009. Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 62, 8: 1457–1506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Reingold, E. M., J. M. Yang, and K. Rayner. 2010. The time course of word frequency and case alternation effects on fixation times in reading: Evidence for lexical control of eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 36, 6: 1677–1683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Slattery, T. J., B. Angele, and K. Rayner. 2011. Eye movements and display change detection during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human and Performance 37: 1924–1938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Smith, L. C. 1984. Semantic satiation affects category membership decision time but not lexical priming. Memory & Cognition 12, 5: 483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Smith, L. C., and R. Klein. 1990. Evidence for semantic satiation: Repeating a category slows subsequent semantic processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory & Cognition 16, 5: 852–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sweller, J. 1988. Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning. Cognitive Science 12, 2: 257–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Tang, H., E. Day, L. Kendhammer, J. N. Moore, S. A. Brown, and N. J. Pienta. 2016. Eye Movement Patterns in Solving Science Ordering Problems. Journal of Eye Movement Research 9, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Tian, X., and D. E. Huber. 2010. Testing an associative account of semantic satiation. Cognitive Psychology 60, 4: 267–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Tian, X., and D. E. Huber. 2013. Playing ‘Duck Duck Goose’ with neurons: Change detection through connectivity reduction. Psychological Science 24: 819–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Tong, W. 2015. The Research of the Orthographic Saturation and Semantic Saturation. Doctoral thesis, Tianjin Normal University. [Google Scholar]
  45. Tong, W., and G. L. Yan. 2013. Review of “Word Satiation” research paradigms and experimental tasks in language cognitive processing. Journal of Tianjin Normal University (Natural Science Edition) 33, 4: 87–96. Retrieved from https://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-TJSD201304020.htm.
  46. Traxler, M. J., D. L. Long, K. M. Tooley, C. L. Johns, M. Zirnstein, and E. Jonathan. 2012. Individual Differences in Eye-Movements During Reading: Working Memory and Speed-of-Processing Effects. Journal of Eye Movement Research 5, 1: 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Wang, F., and S. Xiao. 2020. A Review on the Research Methods of Cognitive Processing inChinese Ambiguity Resolution. Journal of Hainan Normal University: (Natural Science Edition) 33, 4: 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wang, J., W. Q. Song, D. Y. Wu, and Y. Yuan. 2021. Neural Mechanisms of Speech Processing in Chinese Character Reading. Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 36, 10: 1315–1321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wang, P., and L. P. Cai. 2010. Event-Related Potentials for Bilingual Chinese-English Semantic Characterization. Foreign Language Teaching and Research 42, 4: 282–288. [Google Scholar]
  50. Wu, D., L. Jiao, Y. Y. Liu, and R. M. Wang. 2016. Semantic Satiation in Representing Chinese Words. Journal of Psychological Science 39, 3: 527–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Xu, J., and H. L. Wang. 2020. A Review of Studies on Behavioral Eye Tracking in Reading. Publishing Journal (02): 52–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Yan, G. L., J. P. Xiong, C. L. Zang, L. L. Yu, L. Cui, and X. J. Bai. 2013. Review of Eye-movement Measures in Reading Research. Advances in Psychological Science 21, 4: 589–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zhang, J. J., X. Liu, and Y. Wang. 2014. On the semantic saturation of Chinese-English Bilinguals. Foreign Language Teaching and Research 46, 3: 423–434. Retrieved from http://old.fltr.ac.cn/EN/Y2014/V46/I3/423.
  54. Zou, Y. 2020. Research on semantic saturation and glyphs saturation of Chinese characters. Master’s thesis, Jilin University. [Google Scholar]
Jemr 15 00032 g001
Figure 1. Experimental flow chart.
Figure 1. Experimental flow chart.
Jemr 15 00032 g001
Table 1. Samples of experimental materials.
Table 1. Samples of experimental materials.
Priming WordSemantically Related Target WordSemantically Unrelated Target Word
ཞིང་པ།Jemr 15 00032 i005ཉི་མ།
FarmerHerderSun
Table 2. The evaluation results of 60 groups of experimental materials.
Table 2. The evaluation results of 60 groups of experimental materials.
Evaluation ItemMSDExplanation
Familiarity1.200.391 = very familiar, 5 = very unfamiliar
Semantic relevance (semantically related word pairs)1.860.951 = very semantic-related, 5 = very semantically unrelated
Semantic relevance (semantically unrelated word pairs)3.941.201 = very semantic-related, 5 = very semantically unrelated
Orthographic similarity3.831.191 = very similar, 5 = very dissimilar
Table 3. Means and standard errors of indicators under various conditions.
Table 3. Means and standard errors of indicators under various conditions.
DVSemantic StatusRepetition Level
LowMediumHigh
FFDSemantically244236244
related(5.64)(6.11)(6.96)
Semantically249236235
unrelated(6.39)(7.22)(6.50)
GDSemantically710716709
related(29.10)(31.19)(31.11)
Semantically776719673
unrelated(31.94)(32.97)(31.29)
TFDSemantically8749551010
related(35.73)(39.87)(44.47)
Semantically1001954939
unrelated(44.47)(40.02)(40.06)
RTSemantically204821192222
related(56.02)(59.37)(70.27)
Semantically210720462088
unrelated(75.05)(66.09)(68.91)
Note. DV is the dependent variable, the unit of each measure is millisecond, the values in parentheses are standard errors, The same as below.
Table 4. The results of statistical analysis of all indicators.
Table 4. The results of statistical analysis of all indicators.
FFDGDTFDRT
Interceptb5.386.436.717.57
SE0.020.040.042.40
t289.43 ***173.42 ***171.90 ***315.11 ***
Semantic relatednessb-0.020.010.03-2.65
SE0.010.020.021.16
t-1.120.681.83-2.29 *
Repetition level: low-mediumb-0.04-0.040.028.42
SE0.020.020.021.42
t-2.52 *-2.17 *1.170.60
Repetition level: low-highb-0.03-0.080.044.31
SE0.020.020.021.42
t-1.84-3.94 ***1.843.03 **
Repetition level: medium-highb0.01-0.040.013.46
SE0.020.020.021.41
t0.68-1.770.682.45 *
Semantic relatedness × repetition level: low-mediumb-0.02-0.08-0.12-4.29
SE0.040.040.042.83
t-0.46-1.97 *-3.03 **-1.52
Semantic relatedness × repetition level: low-highb-0.04-0.12-0.18-6.75
SE0.040.040.042.84
t-0.98-2.93 **-4.44 ***-2.38 *
Semantic relatedness × repetition level: medium-highb-0.02-0.04-0.06-2.46
SE0.040.040.042.83
t-0.52-0.97-1.42-0.87
Table 5. Examples of experimental materials.
Table 5. Examples of experimental materials.
Priming WordSimilar Target WordDissimilar Target Word
ཀོང་པོ།ཀོང་ཇོ།ཕོར་བ།
Lin ZhiPrincessLeaves
Table 6. The evaluation result of 60 groups of experimental materials.
Table 6. The evaluation result of 60 groups of experimental materials.
Evaluation ItemMSDExplanation
Familiarity1.160.491 = very familiar, 5 = very unfamiliar
Orthographic similarity (Similar pairs)2.541.151 = very similar, 5 = very dissimilar
Orthographic similarity (dissimilar pairs)4.510.881 = very similar, 5 = very dissimilar
Semantic relevance4.241.031 = very semantically related, 5 = very semantically unrelated
Table 7. Means and standard errors of all indicators under various conditions.
Table 7. Means and standard errors of all indicators under various conditions.
DVOrthographic SimilarityRepetition Level
LowMediumHigh
FFDSimilar253249255
orthography(5.87)(6.62)(7.78)
Dissimilar286273271
orthography(8.12)(9.04)(9.88)
GDSimilar496531522
orthography(28.07)(36.26)(29.65)
Dissimilar551572552
orthography(21.56)(25.99)(24.51)
TRDSimilar656713736
orthography(33.94)(40.93)(37.07)
Dissimilar670714701
orthography(31.62)(33.08)(33.31)
RTSimilar174717851821
orthography(64.44)(67.61)(61.62)
Dissimilar148314831477
orthography(71.55)(57.25)(69.56)
Table 8. The results of statistical analysis of all indicators.
Table 8. The results of statistical analysis of all indicators.
FFDGDTFDRT
Interceptb5.466.156.397.31
SE0.020.044.340.03
t292.99 ***153.31 ***147.10 ***245.75 ***
Orthographic similarityb0.070.122.26-0.19
SE0.020.011.600.01
t4.50 ***8.408.40-17.53 ***
Repetition level: low-mediumb-0.040.036.100.01
SE0.020.021.960.01
t-2.25 *1.953.11 **0.88
Repetition level: low-highb-0.040.017.750.02
SE0.020.021.960.01
t-2.09 *0.743.96 ***1.43
Repetition level: medium-highb2.90-0.021.657.34
SE1.900.021.961.35
t0.15-1.200.840.54
Orthographic similarity × repetition level: low-mediumb-0.02-0.02-4.84-0.01
SE0.040.033.910.03
t-0.63-0.53-0.01-0.41
Orthographic similarity × repetition level: low-highb-0.04-0.04-6.54-0.05
SE0.040.033.920.03
t-0.98-1.30-1.67-1.90
Orthographic similarity × repetition level: medium-highb-1.34-0.03-6.49-4.02
SE3.790.033.922.71
t-0.35-0.76-1.66-1.48

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Li, X.; Zeng, M.; Gao, L.; Li, S.; Niu, Z.; Wang, D.; Li, T.; Bai, X.; Gao, X. The Mechanism of Word Satiation in Tibetan Reading: Evidence from Eye Movements. J. Eye Mov. Res. 2022, 15, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.15.5.3

AMA Style

Li X, Zeng M, Gao L, Li S, Niu Z, Wang D, Li T, Bai X, Gao X. The Mechanism of Word Satiation in Tibetan Reading: Evidence from Eye Movements. Journal of Eye Movement Research. 2022; 15(5):1-12. https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.15.5.3

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Xuling, Man Zeng, Lei Gao, Shan Li, Zibei Niu, Danhui Wang, Tianzhi Li, Xuejun Bai, and Xiaolei Gao. 2022. "The Mechanism of Word Satiation in Tibetan Reading: Evidence from Eye Movements" Journal of Eye Movement Research 15, no. 5: 1-12. https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.15.5.3

APA Style

Li, X., Zeng, M., Gao, L., Li, S., Niu, Z., Wang, D., Li, T., Bai, X., & Gao, X. (2022). The Mechanism of Word Satiation in Tibetan Reading: Evidence from Eye Movements. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 15(5), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.15.5.3

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop