Jul 2026· Open Mind· Vol 10, pp. 1118 - 1156· 0 citations· 96 references
Medicine
Abstract
Abstract Sentence processing models posit that syntactic processing difficulty contributes to the processing time of each word (e.g., Lewis & Vasishth, 2005). On the other hand, the E-Z Reader 10 model of eye movements in reading (Reichle et al., 2009) proposes that syntactic processing affects eye movements only when integration of an input word fails. We present two eye movement experiments designed to address this tension. Readers were presented with ungrammatical sentences with a singular subject and a plural verb, but with a plural local noun that often induces an illusion of grammaticality, e.g., *The editor of the magazines are reviewing the articles before publication. After each critical sentence was removed from the screen, the reader made a binary acceptability judgment. When readers rejected the ungrammatical critical sentences, there was also pronounced disruption to incremental reading. However, on the majority of trials readers accepted these sentences, and on those trials the eye movement record revealed only a very small increase in reading time compared to corresponding grammatical sentences; critically, this small effect was entirely explained by the difference between conditions in the lexical surprisal of the verb. Thus, as predicted by E-Z Reader 10, an effect of agreement computation above and beyond the effect of surprisal was in evidence only when agreement computation failed, i.e., the sentence was rejected. We discuss implications for models of incremental sentence processing and reading.
Readers find it difficult to reject ungrammatical sentences with two adjacent words transposed (e.g. I met my friend kind at the station), and they sometimes misclassify such sentences as grammatical—a phenomenon known as the transposed word effect. According to the parallel processing model, readers simultaneously pro...
Language comprehension involves actively predicting upcoming words, but it remains unclear how the brain responds when predictions are disconfirmed. In the present study, we examined the effect of prediction disconfirmation by measuring eye movements in two visual-world eye-tracking experiments. Additionally, we explor...
Jing Tong, Tanja C. Roembke, Wolfgang Scharke et al.· Journal of Cognition· 0 citations
This study examines whether prosody affects how people process and interpret two types of sentences that both have missing material but differ in ambiguity. Stripping sentences (e.g., Grandma hugged the kid at home and Grandpa too) are ambiguous because the argument after and can be read as either the subject of the mi...
Theories of the mental lexicon must explain how people use context to interpret ambiguous words (e.g., "internal organ" vs. "musical organ") and why people vary on this core aspect of comprehension. Theoretical development has been hampered by the lack of reliable tests of disambiguation skill. We introduce a task in w...
L. M. Blott, A. Gowenlock, A. J. Parker et al.· Quarterly Journal of Experim...· 0 citations
Significance When we read sentences, our eyes move back and forth in complex ways. One factor that explains this pattern is prediction: Our experience allows us to anticipate upcoming words, making it is easier to recognize predictable ones. What are the limits on what can be explained by prediction? Here, we use conte...
William Timkey, Kuan-Jung Huang, Byung-Doh Oh et al.· Proceedings of the National...· 2 citations· ⚡2
Skilled readers are thought to rely on bottom-up processing to activate word meanings in long-term memory from their form (i.e., spelling or sound) in a process described as ‘context-free’ lexical processing. However, other research suggests skilled readers recognize words faster when they appear in predictable and/or...
Ashley N. Abraham, Jocelyn Folk· Journal of Eye Movement Rese...· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.