The time course of anticipatory constraint integration.
Several studies have demonstrated that as listeners hear sentences describing events in a scene, their eye movements anticipate upcoming linguistic items predicted by the unfolding relationship between scene and sentence. While this may reflect active prediction based on structural or contextual expectations, the influence of local thematic priming between words has not been fully examined. In Experiment 1, we presented verbs (e.g., arrest) in active (Subject-Verb-Object) sentences with displays containing verb-related patients (e.g., crook) and agents (e.g., policeman). We examined patient and agent fixations following the verb, after the agent role had been filled by another entity, but prior to bottom-up specification of the object. Participants were nearly as likely to fixate agents "anticipatorily" as patients, even though the agent role was already filled. However, the patient advantage suggested simultaneous influences of both local priming and active prediction. In Experiment 2, using passive sentences (Object-Verb-Subject), we found stronger, but still graded influences of role prediction when more time elapsed between verb and target, and more syntactic cues were available. We interpret anticipatory fixations as emerging from constraint-based processes that involve both non-predictive thematic priming and active prediction.
Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269, USA. anuenue.kukona@uconn.edu
Anuenue
A
Kukona
Shin-Yi
SY
Fang
Karen A
KA
Aicher
Helen
H
Chen
James S
JS
Magnuson
D000161:Acoustic Stimulation; D000328:Adult; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D003071:Cognition / Q000502:physiology*; D053483:Eye Movement Measurements; D005133:Eye Movements / Q000502:physiology*; D006801:Humans; D007802:Language; D011930:Reaction Time / Q000502:physiology
Cognition. 2006 Jan;98(3):223-43
16399263
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2003 Jun;132(2):202-27
12825637
Cognition. 2005 May;96(1):B23-32
15833303
Cognition. 2008 Jul;108(1):26-50
18262509
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2005 May;31(3):443-67
15910130
Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2003 Jun;17(1):117-29
12763198
Mem Cognit. 2005 Oct;33(7):1174-84
16532852
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Dec 15;106(50):21086-90
19965371
Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2004 Mar;19(1):59-73
14972359
J Psycholinguist Res. 2003 Jan;32(1):37-55
12647562
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2003 Jun;132(2):163-201
12825636
Psychol Rev. 1994 Oct;101(4):676-703
7984711
J Mem Lang. 2008 Nov;59(4):475-494
19060958
Science. 1995 Jun 16;268(5217):1632-4
7777863
Cognition. 2008 Mar;106(3):1126-77
17662975
Cogn Sci. 2009;33(4):547-582
19662108
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2004 May;30(3):687-96
15099136
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2004 Mar;30(2):498-513
14979820
Brain Res. 2007 May 18;1146:23-49
17400197
Cogn Psychol. 1986 Jan;18(1):1-86
3753912
Psychol Rev. 2001 Jan;108(1):113-48
11212625
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007 Jan;33(1):182-96
17201561
Cogn Sci. 2006 May 6;30(3):481-529
21702823
Cogn Sci. 2009 Jun;33(4):583-609
20396405
J Cogn Neurosci. 2004 Sep;16(7):1272-88
15453979
Psychol Rev. 1956 Mar;63(2):129-38
13310708
Cognition. 1999 Dec 17;73(3):247-64
10585516
Cognition. 2008 Sep;108(3):866-73
18675408
Psychon Bull Rev. 2005 Jun;12(3):453-9
16235628
Nat Neurosci. 2005 Aug;8(8):1117-21
16007080
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2004 Mar;30(2):431-50
14979816
Trends Cogn Sci. 2004 Jul;8(7):301-6
15242689
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2006 Jan;32(1):1-14
16478336
J Exp Psychol Gen. 1985 Jun;114(2):159-97
3159828