Abstract
The maze task is an online measure of sentence processing time that provides an alternative to the standard moving window version of self-paced reading. Rather than each word of the sentence being presented in succession, two words are presented at the same time, and the participant must choose which word is a grammatical continuation of the sentence. This procedure forces the reader into an incremental mode of processing in which each word must be fully integrated with the preceding context before the next word can be considered. Previous research with this technique has not considered whether it is sufficiently sensitive to syntactic complexity effects or to garden path effects. Four experiments are reported demonstrating that reliable differences in processing time for subject relatives and object relatives can be obtained, and that this technique generates garden path effects that correspond closely with the data from eyetracking experiments, but without the spillover effects that are sometimes obtained with eyetracking. It is also shown that the task is sensitive to word frequency effects, producing estimates well in excess of those found with eyetracking.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX lexical database (Release 2) [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.
Dopkins, S., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1992). Lexical ambiguity and eye fixations in reading: A test of competing models of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory & Language, 31, 461–476.
Forster, K. I. (1981). Priming and the effects of sentence and lexical contexts on naming time: Evidence for autonomous lexical processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33A, 465–495.
Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 116–124.
Freedman, S. E., & Forster, K. I. (1985). The psychological status of overgenerated sentences. Cognition, 19, 101–131.
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1–76.
Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 228–238.
King, J., & Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory & Language, 30, 580–602.
Mitchell, D. C. (1987). Lexical guidance in human parsing: Locus and processing characteristics. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 601–681). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mitchell, D. C. (2004). On-line methods in language processing: Introduction and historical review. In M. Carrieras & C. Clifton (Eds.), The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eye-tracking, ERP and beyond (pp. 15–32). London: Routledge.
Nicol, J. L., Forster, K. I., & Vereš, C. (1997). Subject-verb agreement processes in comprehension. Journal of Memory & Language, 36, 569–587.
Rayner, K., Liversedge, S. P., & White, S. J. (2006). Reading and disappearing text: Cognitive control of eye movements. Vision Research, 46, 310–323.
Reichle, E. D., Pollatsek, A., Fisher, D. L., & Rayner, K. (1998). Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. Psychological Review, 105, 125–157.
Schilling, H. E. H., Rayner, K., & Chumbley, J. I. (1998). Comparing naming, lexical decision, and eye fixation times: Word frequency effects and individual differences. Memory & Cognition, 26, 1270–1281.
Schuberth, R. E., & Eimas, P. D. (1977). Effects of context on the classification of words and nonwords. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 3, 27–36.
Traxler, M. J., Morris, R. K., & Seely, R. E. (2002). Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory & Language, 47, 69–90.
Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (1990). Interactions between sentence context and word frequency in event-related brain potentials. Memory & Cognition, 18, 380–393.
Wanner, E., & Maratsos, M. (1978). An ATN approach to comprehension. In M. Halle, J. Bresnan, & G. Miller (Eds.), Linguistic theory and psychological reality (pp. 119–161). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Waters, G. S., Caplan, D., & Hildebrandt, N. (1987). Working memory and written sentence comprehension. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 531–555). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported in part by a grant from the National Science Foundation.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Forster, K.I., Guerrera, C. & Elliot, L. The maze task: Measuring forced incremental sentence processing time. Behavior Research Methods 41, 163–171 (2009). https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.1.163
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.1.163