Advertisement

When eye fixation might not reflect online ambiguity resolution in the visual-world paradigm: structural priming following multiple primes in Portuguese

  • Eunice G. FernandesEmail author
  • Moreno I. Coco
  • Holly P. Branigan
Research Paper
  • 5 Downloads

Abstract

Research on structural priming in the visual-world paradigm (VWP) has examined how visual referents are looked at when participants are repeatedly exposed to sentences with the same or a different syntactic structure. A core finding is that participants look more at a visual referent when it is consistent with the primed interpretation. In this study, we examine the hypothesis that by using multiple primes, we should induce a stronger structural preference, and hence, observe more looks to the visual referent that is consistent with the interpretation of the primed structure. In three VWP eye-tracking experiments, Portuguese speakers were asked to read aloud one, two or three relative clause (RC) sentences that were morphologically disambiguated towards a high- or low- attachment reading. Then, they were presented with a visual display and listened to an ambiguous RC. Listeners fixated more the referent consistent with the primed attachment after one prime, but unexpectedly looked more at the referent consistent with the non-primed attachment following two and three primes. In a fourth experiment, we assessed the gaze pattern during unambiguous RC processing, and found a consistent preference for looking at the non-antecedent referent. Our experiments show that exposure to multiple primes can lead to fewer looks to the primed antecedent. Moreover, people do not seem to always look at the antecedent consistent with the attachment, suggesting that the link between attending to visual information and understanding spoken information may not be straightforward.

Keywords

Syntactic priming Visual-world paradigm Ambiguity Language comprehension Portuguese 

Notes

Funding

This work was supported by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia Grants SFRH/BD/72307/2010 awarded to EF and SFRH/BDP/88374/2012 awarded to MC. HB was supported by a British Academy/Leverhulme Senior Research Fellowship.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

41809_2019_21_MOESM1_ESM.docx (36 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 36 kb)
41809_2019_21_MOESM2_ESM.docx (21 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 21 kb)
41809_2019_21_MOESM3_ESM.docx (15.9 mb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 16315 kb)

References

  1. Arai, M., van Gompel, R. P. G., & Scheepers, C. (2007). Priming ditransitive structures in comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 54, 218–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnold, J. E. (2001). The effects of thematic roles on pronoun use and frequency of reference. Discourse Processes, 31(2), 137–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnold, J. E., Eisenband, J. G., Brown-Schmidt, S., & Trueswell, J. C. (2000). The rapid use of gender information: Evidence of the time course of pronoun resolution from eyetracking. Cognition, 76(1), B13–B26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(00)00073-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baayen, R., Davidson, D., & Bates, D. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Birmingham, E., Bischof, W., & Kingstone, A. (2008). Social attention and real-world scenes: The roles of action, competition and social content. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 986–998.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701410375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowman, H., Filetti, M., Wyble, B., & Olivers, C. (2013). Attention is more than prediction precision. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(03), 206–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & McLean, J. F. (2005). Priming prepositional-phrase attachment during language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 468–481.Google Scholar
  9. Carey, P. W., Mehler, J., & Bever, T. G. (1970). Judging the veracity of ambiguous sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 9, 243–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Castelhano, M. S., Wieth, M., & Henderson, J. M. (2007). I see what you see: Eye movements in real-world scenes are affected by perceived direction of gaze. In L. Paletta & E. Rome (Eds.), Attention in Cognitive Systems. Theories and Systems from an Interdisciplinary Viewpoint. WAPCV 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 4840). Heidelberg: Springer, Berlin.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77343-6_16.Google Scholar
  11. Coco, M. I., & Keller, F. (2015). The interaction of visual and linguistic saliency during syntactic ambiguity resolution. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(1), 46–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coco, M. I., Keller, F., & Malcolm, G. L. (2016). Anticipation in real-world scenes: The role of visual context and visual memory. Cognitive Science, 40, 1995–2024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cooper, R. M. (1974). The control of eye fixation by the meaning of spoken language: A new methodology for the real-time investigation of speech perception, memory, and language processing. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 84–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Desmet, T., & Declercq, M. (2006). Cross-linguistic priming of syntactic hierarchical configuration information. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 610–632.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fernandes, E., Costa, A., Coco, M.I. (2015). Bridging mechanisms of reading, viewing and working memory during attachment resolution of ambiguous relative clauses. In G. Airenti, B.G. Bara, G. Sandini (Eds.), Proceedings of the EuroAsianPacific Joint Conference on Cognitive Science (pp. 264–269). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1419.
  16. Findlay, J. M., & Gilchrist, I. D. (2003). Active vision the psychology of looking and seeing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fine, A. B., Jaeger, T. F., Farmer, T. A., & Qian, T. (2013). Rapid expectation adaptation during syntactic comprehension. PLoS One, 8, e77661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hartsuiker, R. J., Bernolet, S., Schoonbaert, S., Speybroeck, S., & Vanderelst, D. (2008). Syntactic priming persists while the lexical boost decays: Evidence from written and spoken dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 214–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huettig, F., & Altmann, G. T. M. (2004). The online processing of ambiguous and unambiguous words in context: Evidence from head-mounted eye-tracking. In M. Carreiras & C. Clifton (Eds.), The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eyetracking, ERP and beyond (pp. 187–207). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  20. Huettig, F., & Altmann, G. T. M. (2005). Word meaning and the control of eye fixation: Semantic competitor effects and the visual world paradigm. Cognition, 96, B23–B32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huettig, F., & Mani, N. (2016). Is prediction necessary to understand language? Probably not, Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(1), 19–31.  https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1072223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huettig, F., Olivers, N. L., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2011a). Looking, language, and memory: Bridging research from the visual world and visual search paradigms. Acta Psychologica, 137, 138–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Huettig, F., Rommers, J., & Meyer, A. S. (2011b). Using the visual world paradigm to study language processing: A review and critical evaluation. Acta Psychologica, 137, 151–171.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.11.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huettig, F., Singh, N., & Mishra, R. K. (2011c). Language-mediated visual orienting behavior in low and high literates. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 285.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Järvikivi, J., Van Gompel, R. P. G., Hyönä, J., & Bertram, R. (2005). Ambiguous pronoun resolution: Contrasting the first-mention and subject preference accounts. Psychological Science, 16, 260–264.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01525.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaiser, E., & Trueswell, J. C. (2008). Interpreting pronouns and demonstratives in Finnish: Evidence for a form-specific approach to reference resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 709–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kamide, Y. (2012). Learning individual talkers’ structural preferences. Cognition, 124(1), 66–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kim, C. S., Carbary, K. M., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2014). Syntactic priming without lexical overlap in reading comprehension. Language and Speech, 57(2), 181–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maia, M., Fernández, E. M., Costa, A., & Lourenço-Gomes, M. C. (2007). Early and late preferences in relative clause attachment in Portuguese and Spanish. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics, 5, 227–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mehler, J., & Carey, P. (1967). Role of surface and base structure in the perception of sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 335–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mehler, J., & Carey, P. (1968). The interaction of veracity and syntax in the processing of sentences. Perception & Psychophysics, 3, 109–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mirman, D., Dixon, J. A., & Magnuson, J. S. (2008). Statistical and computational models of the visual world paradigm: Growth curves and individual differences. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 475–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nelson, W. W., & Loftus, G. R. (1980). The functional visual field during picture viewing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 391–399.Google Scholar
  34. Noppeney, U., & Price, C. J. (2004). An fMRI study of syntactic adaptation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(4), 702–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. (1998). The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 633–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pickering, M. J., McLean, J., & Branigan, H. P. (2013). Persistent structural priming and frequency effects during comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(3), 890–897.Google Scholar
  37. Scheepers, C. (2003). Syntactic priming of relative clause attachments: persistence of structural configuration in sentence production. Cognition, 89, 179–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K., & Sedivy, J. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 1632–1634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tatler, B. W. (2007). The central fixation bias in scene viewing: Selecting an optimal viewing position independently of motor biases and image feature distributions. Journal of Vision, 7(14), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thothathiri, M., & Snedeker, J. (2008). Give and take: Syntactic priming during spoken language comprehension. Cognition, 108, 51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tooley, K., Traxler, M. J., & Swaab, T. Y. (2009). Electrophysiological and behavioral evidence of syntactic priming in sentence comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 19–45.Google Scholar
  43. Traxler, M. J. (2008). Lexically independent priming in online sentence comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 149–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Traxler, M. J., & Tooley, K. M. (2008). Priming in on-line sentence comprehension: Strategic or syntactic? Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(5), 609–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Traxler, M. J., Tooley, K. M., & Pickering, M. J. (2014). Syntactic priming during sentence comprehension: evidence for the lexical boost. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 905–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12(1), 97–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vandeberg, L., Bouwmeester, S., Bocanegra, B. R., & Zwaan, R. A. (2013). Detecting cognitive interactions through eye movement transitions. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 445–460.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.05.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wells, J. B., Christiansen, M. H., Race, D. S., Acheson, D. J., & MacDonald, M. C. (2009). Experience and sentence processing: Statistical learning and relative clause comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 250–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center of LinguisticsUniversity of Lisbon, Alameda da UniversidadeLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Lisbon, Alameda da UniversidadeLisbonPortugal
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations