Goals Drive Adaptive Analysis of Linguistic Features During Reading
- 1University of Aberdeen
Abstract
Reading behaviour is sensitive to contextual demands. For example, when reading to study or answer questions, readers strategically allocate more attention to goal-relevant sections, read slower, and regress more frequently to extract specific information based on task demands. This suggests that readers flexibly adapt their strategies according to goals and situational constraints. However, the neurocognitive mechanisms supporting this flexibility remain unclear. To test this, we combined eye-tracking with EEG during naturalistic reading and examined how short-term reading goals modulated the neural tracking of hierarchical linguistic features at the orthographic (orthographic neighbourhood size), lexical (word frequency), and contextual-semantic (Surprisal) levels. Forty native English speakers read narratives in three goal conditions: Baseline (no goal), Proofreading (detect spelling errors), and Comprehension (attend to content). Fixation-aligned word-level EEG activity was modelled using multivariate temporal response function to estimate the strength of feature-specific neural tracking. Orthographic tracking was significantly enhanced during Proofreading relative to Baseline, and predicted better Proofreading accuracy. Conversely, stronger frequency tracking predicted better Comprehension accuracy. Contextual-semantic tracking was not modulated by task goal. These findings suggest that reading goals selectively bias neural processing towards linguistic features (sublexical vs. lexical) that support successful task performance, providing evidence for short-term functional plasticity in linguistic processing and supporting a flexible predictive processing account of goal-directed reading.
Related
- Voice and linguistic features support early attentional filtering of irrelevant stimuli
- Hybrid spatial organization and evidence for magnitude-independent neural coding of linguistic information during sentence production
- ‘(m6)A’ stands for ‘autoimmunity’: reading, writing, and erasing RNA modifications during inflammation
- Predictions and goals modulate use of partner's gaze during joint action with humanoid robots☆
- Adaptive gating-based fusion of sequential and local features for predicting drug-drug interactions
BibTeX
@misc{alex2026goals,
title = {{Goals Drive Adaptive Analysis of Linguistic Features During Reading}},
author = {P. Alex and J. Schwarz and B. W. Tatler and A. Konopka and A. Klimovich-Gray},
howpublished = {bioRxiv},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.64898/2026.09.25.754337},
url = {https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.25.754337v1},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Goals Drive Adaptive Analysis of Linguistic Features During Reading
AU - P. Alex
AU - J. Schwarz
AU - B. W. Tatler
AU - A. Konopka
AU - A. Klimovich-Gray
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/25
PB - bioRxiv
DO - 10.64898/2026.09.25.754337
UR - https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.25.754337v1
AB - Reading behaviour is sensitive to contextual demands. For example, when reading to study or answer questions, readers strategically allocate more attention to goal-relevant sections, read slower, and regress more frequently to extract specific information based on task demands. This suggests that readers flexibly adapt their strategies according to goals and situational constraints. However, the neurocognitive mechanisms supporting this flexibility remain unclear. To test this, we combined eye-tracking with EEG during naturalistic reading and examined how short-term reading goals modulated the neural tracking of hierarchical linguistic features at the orthographic (orthographic neighbourhood size), lexical (word frequency), and contextual-semantic (Surprisal) levels. Forty native English speakers read narratives in three goal conditions: Baseline (no goal), Proofreading (detect spelling errors), and Comprehension (attend to content). Fixation-aligned word-level EEG activity was modelled using multivariate temporal response function to estimate the strength of feature-specific neural tracking. Orthographic tracking was significantly enhanced during Proofreading relative to Baseline, and predicted better Proofreading accuracy. Conversely, stronger frequency tracking predicted better Comprehension accuracy. Contextual-semantic tracking was not modulated by task goal. These findings suggest that reading goals selectively bias neural processing towards linguistic features (sublexical vs. lexical) that support successful task performance, providing evidence for short-term functional plasticity in linguistic processing and supporting a flexible predictive processing account of goal-directed reading.
ER -