Jingxin Wang

Prof. Jingxin Wang

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

14Years (2013-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 June 2018 in Psychology and Aging
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
SLSha Li
Sha Li
LLLin Li
Lin Li
JWJingxin Wang
Jingxin Wang
VMVictoria A. McGowan
Victoria A. McGowan
KPKevin Paterson
Kevin Paterson
Effects of word length on where and for how long readers fixate within text are preserved in older age for alphabetic languages like English that use spaces to demarcate word boundaries. However, word length effects for older readers of naturally unspaced, character-based languages like Chinese are unknown. Accordingly, we examined age differences in eye movements for short (2-character) and long (4-character) words during Chinese reading. Word length effects on eye-fixation times were greater for older than younger adults. We suggest this age difference is due to older adults' saccades landing more rarely at optimal intraword locations, especially in longer words. (PsycINFO Database Record

13 August 2019 in Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
LLLin Li
Lin Li
SLSha Li
Sha Li
FXFang Xie
Fang Xie
MCMin Chang
Min Chang
VMVictoria A. McGowan
Victoria A. McGowan
KPKevin Paterson
Kevin Paterson
Older adults experience greater difficulty compared to young adults during both alphabetic and nonalphabetic reading. However, while this age-related readi

1 January 2022 in Cognition
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
ZLZhiwei Liu
Zhiwei Liu
YLYan Li
Yan Li
MCMichael G. Cutter
Michael G. Cutter
KPKevin Paterson
Kevin Paterson
JWJingxin Wang
Jingxin Wang

8 January 2019 in Frontiers in Psychology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SLSha Li
Sha Li
LOLaurien Oliver-Mighten
Laurien Oliver-Mighten
LLLin Li
Lin Li
SWSarah J. White
Sarah J. White
KPKevin B. Paterson
Kevin B. Paterson
VMVictoria A. McGowan
Victoria A. McGowan
Large-scale changes in text spacing, such as removing the spaces between words, disrupt reading more for older (65+ years) than younger (18–30 years) adults. However, it is unknown whether older readers show greater sensitivity to simultaneous subtle changes in inter-letter and inter-word spacing encountered in everyday reading. To investigate this, we recorded young and older adults’ eye movements while reading sentences in which inter-letter and inter-word spacing was normal, condensed (10 and 20% smaller than normal), or expanded (10 or 20% larger than normal). Each sentence included either a high or low frequency target word, matched for length and contextual predictability. Condensing but not expanding text spacing disrupted reading more for the older adults. Moreover, word frequency effects (the reading time cost for low compared to high frequency words) were larger for the older adults, consistent with aging effects on lexical processing in previous research. However, this age difference in the word frequency effect did not vary across spacing conditions, suggesting spacing did not further disrupt older readers’ lexical processing. We conclude that visual rather than lexical processing is disrupted more for older readers when text spacing is condensed and discuss this finding in relation to common age-related visual deficits.

14 January 2020 in Vision
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
KPKevin Paterson
Kevin Paterson
VMVictoria A. McGowan
Victoria A. McGowan
KWKayleigh Warrington
Kayleigh Warrington
LLLin Li
Lin Li
SLSha Li
Sha Li
JWJingxin Wang
Jingxin Wang
Substantial progress has been made in understanding the mostly detrimental effects of normative aging on eye movements during reading. This article provides a review of research on aging effects on eye movements during reading for different writing systems (i.e., alphabetic systems like English compared to non-alphabetic systems like Chinese), focused on appraising the importance of visual and cognitive factors, considering key methodological issues, and identifying vital questions that need to be addressed and topics for further investigation.

15 May 2023 in Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SMSara Milledge
Sara Milledge
NBNeya Bhatia
Neya Bhatia
LMLoren Mensah-Mcleod
Loren Mensah-Mcleod
PRPallvi Raghvani
Pallvi Raghvani
VMVictoria A. McGowan
Victoria A. McGowan
KPKevin Paterson
Kevin Paterson
Studies using a grammaticality decision task have revealed surprising flexibility in the processing of word order during sentence reading in both alphabetic and non-alphabetic scripts. Participants in these studies typically exhibit a transposed-word effect, in which they make more errors and slower correct responses for stimuli that contain a word transposition and are derived from grammatical as compared to ungrammatical base sentences. Some researchers have used this finding to argue that words are encoded in parallel during reading, such that multiple words can be processed simultaneously and might be recognised out of order. This contrasts with an alternative account of the reading process, which argues that words must be encoded serially, one at a time. We examined, in English, whether the transposed-word effect provides evidence for a parallel-processing account, employing the same grammaticality decision task used in previous research and display procedures that either allowed for parallel word encoding or permitted only the serial encoding of words. Our results replicate and extend recent findings by showing that relative word order can be processed flexibly even when parallel processing is not possible (i.e., within displays requiring serial word encoding). Accordingly, while the present findings provide further evidence for flexibility in the processing of relative word order during reading, they add to converging evidence that the transposed-word effect does not provide unequivocal evidence for a parallel-processing account of reading. We consider how the present findings may be accounted for by both serial and parallel accounts of word recognition in reading.