Abstract
Two experiments examined how cognitive resources are allocated to comprehension processes across two readings of the same scientific texts. In Experiment 1, readers read and later reread texts describing scientific topics. The results indicated that across readings, readers decreased resources allocated to proposition assembly, increased resources allocated to text-level integration, and expended a similar amount of resources to lexical access. Subjects who reread the texts after a week delay showed a similar pattern, except that they did not show the increase for text-level integration. Experiment 2 revealed a similar pattern of results with a moving window procedure, except that there was a significant decrease in resources allocated to lexical access across exposures. This experiment also indicated that the rereading speedup was greatest at sentence boundaries, suggesting that the prior exposure enabled readers to immediately process each word. Overall, the results are consistent with the claim that readers allocate proportionally more available resources to text-level integration during rereading because proposition assembly, which enables text-level integration, can be completed with fewer resources.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aaronson, D., &Ferres, S. (1984). The word-by-word reading paradigm: An experimental and theoretical approach. In D. Kieras & M. Just (Eds.),New methods in comprehension research (pp. 31–68). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Allen, P. A., McNeal, M., &Kvak, D. (1992). Perhaps the lexicon is coded as a function of work frequency.Journal of Memory & Language,31, 826–844.
Anderson, R. C., &Pichert, J. W. (1978). Recall of previously unrecallable information following a shift in perspective.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,17, 1–12.
Anderson, T. H. (1980). Study strategies and adjunct aids. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.),Theoretical issues in comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive psychology, artificial intelligence, linguistics, and education (pp. 483–502). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Balota, D. A., &Chumbley, J. I. (1984). Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical access? The role of word frequency in the neglected decision stage.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,10, 340–357.
Black, J. B. (1984). An exposition on understanding expository text. In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.),Understanding expository text(pp. 249–267). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bovair, S., &Kieras, D. E. (1985). A guide to propositional analysis of research on technical prose. In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.),Understanding expository text (pp. 315–362). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brewer, W. F. (1980). Literary theory, rhetoric, and stylistics: Implications for psychology. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Brewer, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.),Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 221–239). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Britton, B. K., Glynn, S. M., &Smith, J. B. (1985). Cognitive demands of processing expository text: A cognitive workbench model. In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.),Understanding expository text (pp. 227–248). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bromage, B. K., &Mayer, R. E. (1986). Quantitative and qualitative effects of repetition on learning from technical text.Journal of Educational Psychology,78, 271–278.
Brown, A. L., &Smiley, S. S. (1977). Rating the importance of structural units of prose passages: A problem of meta-cognition development.Child Development,48, 1–8.
Carlson, L. A., Alejano, A. R., &Carr, T. H. (1991). The level-offocal-attention hypothesis in oral reading: Influence of strategies on the context specificity of lexical repetition effects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,17, 924–931.
Carr, T. H., &Brown, J. S. (1990). Perceptual abstraction and interactivity in repeated oral reading: Where do things stand?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 731–738.
Carr, T. H., Brown, J. S., &Charalambous, A. (1989). Repetition and reading: Perceptual encoding mechanisms are very abstract but not very interactive.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 763–779.
Chang, F. R. (1980). Active memory processes in visual sentence comprehension: Clause effects and pronominal reference.Memory & Cognition,8, 58–64.
Cirilo, R. K., &Foss, D. J. (1980). Text structure and reading time for sentences.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,19, 96–109.
Dixon, P., Bortolussi, M., Twilley, L. C., &Leung, A. (1993). Literary processing and interpretation: Towards empirical foundations.Poetics,22, 5–33.
Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick.Journal of Applied Psychology,32, 221–233.
Foss, D. (1982). A discourse on priming.Cognitive Psychology,14, 590–607.
Glenberg, A. M., Meyer, M., &Lindem, K. (1987). Mental models contribute to foregrounding during text comprehension.Journal of Memory & Language,26, 69–83.
Goldman, S. R., &Saul, E. U. (1990). Flexibility in text processing: A strategy competition model.Learning & Individual Differences,2, 181–219.
Graesser, A. C. (1981).Prose comprehension beyond the word. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Graesser, A. C., Haberlandt, K. F., &Kiozumi, D. (1987). How is reading time influenced by knowledge-based inferences and world knowledge? In B. Britton (Ed.),Executive control processes in reading (pp. 217–251). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Graesser, A. C., Hoffman, N. L., &Clark, L. F. (1980). Structural components of reading time.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,19, 135–151.
Graesser, A. C., &Riha, J. R. (1984). An application of multiple regression techniques to sentence reading times. In D. Kieras & M. A. Just (Eds.),New methods in comprehension research (pp. 183–218). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., &Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension.Psychological Review,101, 371–395.
Graf, P., &Levy, B. A. (1984). Reading and remembering: Conceptual and perceptual processing involved in reading rotated passages.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,23, 405–424.
Haberlandt, K. F., &Graesser, A. C. (1985). Component processes in text comprehension and some of their interactions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,114, 357–374.
Haenggi, D., &Perfetti, C. A. (1992). Individual differences in reprocessing of text.Journal of Educational Psychology,84, 182–192.
Horton, K. D. (1985). The role of semantic information in reading spatially transformed text.Cognitive Psychology,17, 66–88.
Howe, M. J. A., &Singer, L. (1975). Presentation variables and students’ activities in meaningful learning.British Journal of Educational Psychology,45, 52–61.
Jacoby, L. L. (1983). Perceptual enhancement: Persistent effects of an experience.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,9, 21–38.
Just, M. A., &Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension.Psychological Review,87, 329–354.
Just, M. A., &Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory.Psychological Review,99, 122–149.
Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., &Woolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,111, 228–238.
Kintsch, W., Kozminsky, E., Streby, W. J., McKoon, G., &Keenan, J. (1975). Comprehension and recall of text as a function of content variables.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,14, 196–214.
Kintsch, W., &Mross, E. F. (1985). Context effects in word identification.Journal of Memory & Language,24, 336–349.
Kintsch, W., &van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production.Psychological Review,85, 363–394.
Knight, G. P. (1984). A survey of some important techniques and issues in multiple regression. In D. Kieras & M. A. Just (Eds.),New methods in comprehension research (pp. 183–218). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kolers, P. A. (1975). Memorial consequences of automatized encoding.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,1, 689–701.
Kolers, P. A. (1976). Reading a year later.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,2, 554–565.
Kučera, H., &Francis, W. (1967).Computational analysis of presentday American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
LaBerge, D., &Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading.Cognitive Psychology,6, 293–323.
Levy, B. A., Barnes, L., &Martin, L. (1993). Transfer of fluency across repetitions and across texts.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,47, 401–427.
Levy, B. A., &Burns, K. I. (1990). Reprocessing text: Contributions from conceptually driven processes.Canadian Journal of Psychology,44, 465–482.
Levy, B. A., Campsall, J., Browne, J., Cooper, D., Waterhouse, C., &Wilson, C. (1995). Reading fluency: Episodic integration across texts.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 1169–1185.
Levy, B. A., &Kirsner, K. (1989). Reprocessing text: Indirect measures of word and message level processes.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 407–417.
Levy, B. A., Masson, M. E. J., &Zoubek, M. A. (1991). Rereading text: Words and their context.Canadian Journal of Psychology,45, 492–506.
Lorch, R. F., &Myers, J. L. (1990). Regression analysis of repeated measures data in cognitive research.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 149–157.
MacDonald, M. C., Just, M. A., &Carpenter, P. A. (1992). Working memory constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity.Cognitive Psychology,24, 56–98.
Masson, M. E. J., &Freedman, L. (1990). Fluent identification of repeated words.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 355–373.
Masson, M. E. J., &Sala, L. S. (1978). Interactive processes in sentence comprehension and recognition.Cognitive Psychology,10, 244–270.
Mayer, R. E. (1983). Can you repeat that? Qualitative effects of repetition and advance organizers from science prose.Journal of Educational Psychology,75, 40–49.
Meyer, B. J. F., &McConkie, G. W. (1973). What is recalled after hearing a passage?Journal of Educational Psychology,65, 109–117.
Millis, K. K. (1995). Encoding discourse perspective during the reading of a literary text.Poetics,23, 235–253.
Millis, K. K., Morgan, D., &Graesser, A. C. (1990). The influence of knowledge-based inferences on the reading time of expository text. In A. C. Graesser & G. H. Bower (Eds.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 25, pp. 197–212). New York: Academic Press.
Millis, K. K., &Simon, S. (1994). Rereading scientific texts: Changes in resource allocation. In H. Van Oostendorp & R. Zwaan (Eds.),Naturalistic text comprehension (pp. 115–133). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Millis, K. [K.], Simon, S., & Lucas, J. (1992, November).Memory for scientific texts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, St. Louis.
Mills, C. B., Diehl, V. A., Birkmire, D. P., &Mous, L. C. (1993). Procedural text: Predictions of importance ratings and recall by models of reading comprehension.Discourse Processes,16, 279–315.
Morrow, D. G., Greenspan, S. L., &Bower, G. H. (1987). Accessibility and situation models in narrative comprehension.Journal of Memory & Language,26, 165–187.
Morton, J. (1969). Interaction of information in word recognition.Psychological Review,76, 165–178.
Perfetti, C. A. (1985).Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.
Perfetti, C. A. (1988). Verbal efficiency in reading ability. In M. Daneman, G. E. Mackinnon, & T. G. Waller (Eds.),Reading research: Advances in theory and practice (Vol. 6, pp. 109–143). New York: Academic Press.
Perfetti, C. A., &Hogaboam, T. W. (1975). The relationship between single word decoding and reading comprehension skill.Journal of Educational Psychology,67, 461–469.
Rothkopf, E. Z. (1968). Textual constraint as a function of repeated inspection.Journal of Educational Psychology,59, 20–25.
Scarborough, D. L., Cortese, C., &Scarborough, H. S. (1977). Frequency and repetition effects in lexical memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,3, 1–17.
Schank, R. C., &Abelson, R. P. (1977).Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schmalhofer, F., &Glavanov, D. (1986). Three components of understanding a programmer’s manual: Verbatim, propositional, and situational representations.Journal of Memory & Language,25, 279–294.
Seidenberg, M. S., &McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming.Psychological Review,96, 523–568.
Sharkey, N. E. (1986). A model of knowledge-based expectations in text comprehension. In J. A. Galambos, R. P. Abelson, & J. B. Black (Eds.),Knowledge structures (pp. 49–70). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. or]Simon, S., & Ditrichs, R. (1988, April).Text processing as a function of test expectancy and test difficulty. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago.
Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,18, 645–674.
Taft, M., &Forster, K. I. (1976). Lexical storage and retrieval of polymorphemic and polysyllabic words.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,15, 607–620.
Tardif, T., &Craik, F. I. M. (1989). Reading a week later: Perceptual and conceptual factors.Journal of Memory & Language,28, 107–125.
Trabasso, T., &Sperry, L. L. (1985). Causal relatedness and importance of story events.Journal of Memory & Language,24, 595–611.
Trabasso, T., &van den Broek, P. (1985). Causal thinking and the representation of narrative events.Journal of Memory & Language,24, 595–611.
van Dijk, T. A., &Kintsch, W. (1983).Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
—Accepted by previous editor, Geoffrey R. Loftus
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Millis, K.K., Simon, S. & Tenbroek, N.S. Resource allocation during the rereading of scientific texts. Mem Cogn 26, 232–246 (1998). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201136
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201136