title: Impulse processing: a dynamical systems model of incremental eye movements in the visual world paradigm.
abstract: The Visual World Paradigm (VWP) presents listeners with a challenging problem: They must integrate two disparate signals, the spoken language and the visual context, in support of action (e.g., complex movements of the eyes across a scene). We present Impulse Processing, a dynamical systems approach to incremental eye movements in the visual world that suggests a framework for integrating language, vision, and action generally. Our approach assumes that impulses driven by the language and the visual context impinge minutely on a dynamical landscape of attractors corresponding to the potential eye-movement behaviors of the system. We test three unique predictions of our approach in an empirical study in the VWP, and describe an implementation in an artificial neural network. We discuss the Impulse Processing framework in relation to other models of the VWP.
authors: Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut Haskins Laboratories, New Haven.
authors: Anuenue
authors: A
authors: Kukona
authors: Whitney
authors: W
authors: Tabor
references: J Mem Lang. 2008 Nov;59(4):475-494
references: 19060958
references: Mem Cognit. 1982 Sep;10(5):503-9
references: 7176912
references: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2003 Jun;132(2):202-27
references: 12825637
references: Cognition. 2005 May;96(1):B23-32
references: 15833303
references: Cognition. 2009 Apr;111(1):55-71
references: 19193366
references: Chaos. 1991 Dec;1(4):379-386
references: 12779934
references: Cogn Psychol. 1986 Jan;18(1):1-86
references: 3753912
references: Cogn Sci. 2006 May 6;30(3):481-529
references: 21702823
references: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1997 Jun;126(2):99-130
references: 9163932
references: Behav Brain Sci. 1999 Aug;22(4):577-609; discussion 610-60
references: 11301525
references: Nat Rev Neurosci. 2005 Jul;6(7):576-82
references: 15959465
references: Psychol Rev. 2004 Jul;111(3):662-720
references: 15250780
references: IEEE Trans Neural Netw. 2003;14(2):444-6
references: 18238027
references: Neuroimage. 2010 Jan 1;49(1):782-93
references: 19660559
references: Psychol Rev. 1965 Mar;72:89-104
references: 14282677
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007 Mar;33(2):407-30
references: 17352621
references: Science. 1995 Jun 16;268(5217):1632-4
references: 7777863
references: Cognition. 2008 Mar;106(3):1126-77
references: 17662975
references: Psychol Rev. 1982 Jan;89(1):60-94
references: 7058229
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2004 May;30(3):687-96
references: 15099136
references: Cogn Sci. 2009 May;33(3):449-96
references: 21585477
references: Cognition. 1999 Dec 17;73(3):247-64
references: 10585516
references: Science. 2003 Jan 17;299(5605):380-3
references: 12532013
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2005 Jun;12(3):453-9
references: 16235628
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Feb;7(2):84-91
references: 12584027
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1984 Dec;10(6):812-32
references: 6239907
references: Psychol Res. 2001 Nov;65(4):235-41
references: 11789427
references: Behav Brain Sci. 1997 Dec;20(4):723-42; discussion 743-67
references: 10097009
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2004 Mar;30(2):431-50
references: 14979816
references: Cogn Neuropsychol. 2001 Feb 1;18(1):71-92
references: 20945207
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2006 Jan;32(1):1-14
references: 16478336
references: J Mem Lang. 2008 Nov;59(4):434-446
references: 19884961
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Dec 15;106(50):21086-90
references: 19965371
references: J Psycholinguist Res. 2008 Mar;37(2):87-113
references: 18046650
references: Cognition. 2011 Apr;119(1):23-42
references: 21237450