The present study examined the effect of reading goals on the processing and memory of central and peripheral textual information. Using eye-tracking methodology, we compared the effect of four common reading goals—entertainment, presentation, studying for a close-ended (multiple-choice) questions test, and studying for an open-ended questions test—on the specific reading time of central and peripheral information and the overall reading time of expository texts. Text memory was tested using multiple-choice questions. Results showed that readers devoted more time to central information than peripheral information during initial reading, regardless of reading goal, but that they adjusted their rereading to the reading goal, with total reading time being longer for central information under some (entertainment and presentation) but not all (open-ended and close-ended questions tests) reading goals. Moreover, readers devoted more time to reading the texts for a study purpose (test or presentation) than for an entertainment purpose, and devoted more time in reading the texts to answer open-ended questions than close-ended questions. Finally, we found that readers remembered more central information than peripheral information under all reading goals. These findings suggest that centrality affects readers’ early processing of text whereas reading goals only affect subsequent processing. Interestingly, processing time during reading predicted memory for peripheral information but not for central information.
Reading and Writing – Springer Journals
Published: Mar 24, 2015
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud