中文摘要：

运用动窗与眼动技术考察文本阅读中时间信息的加工特点符合强印象假设还是场景理论。行为实验结果发现，关键句和时间词的阅读时问以及探测词的反应时符合强印象假设，而关键事件的阅读时间和对问题的反应时符合场景理论。眼动实验结果发现，在时间词区，总阅读时间、总阅读次数符合场景理论；对于关键事件，总阅读时间、回视路径时间和总注视点次数也符合场景理论；在时间词区以及关键事件上反应早期阶段加工的首次注视时间上不同条件没有显著的差异，但总体趋势符合强印象假设。据此，本研究提出的时间信息加工的二阶段模型得到初步证明。

英文摘要：

Temporal information plays a very important role in narrative comprehension, but how it is processed has remained unclear. For a long time, the Strong Iconicity Assumption and the Scenario Theory offered competing explanations. We argue that these two theories emphasize different stages of processing time shifts. The Strong Iconicity Assumption concerns the first stage, the updating stage, and the Scenario Theory concerns the last stage, the integrating stage. We conducted three rating tests and three experiments to test our hypotheses. The first test was designed to explore whether the duration time was significantly different for the three levels of temporal continuity： a moment later, an hour later and a year later, and if the results were significant between any two of them. The second rating test was used to ensure that the time continuities of a moment and an hour were not beyond the scenario but a year was. Results were consistent with our predictions, with the longest average scenario found to be 4.85 hours and the shortest one 38.72 minutes. In the third rating test, we further evaluated the syntactic and semantic acceptability of the consistency between temporal markers and critical events to ensure that the results of the first rating tests reflected the processing of temporal information.. No significant differences were found in the three temporal conditions for syntactic acceptability, but significant differences were found for semantic acceptability. This indicated that results reflected the processing of the temporal information, which supported our predications. In Experiments 1 and 2 we used a moving-window technique to verify the Strong Iconicity Assumption and the Scenario Theory, and to provide primary evidences for our hypothesis. Results showed that the response latencies of recognition words, reading times of the critical sentences, and temporal markers were consistent with the Strong Iconicity Assumption. As such, reading times of the critical events and the response latencies of the