title: Prediction, events, and the advantage of agents: the processing of semantic roles in visual narrative.
abstract: Agents consistently appear prior to Patients in sentences, manual signs, and drawings, and Agents are responded to faster when presented in visual depictions of events. We hypothesized that this "Agent advantage" reflects Agents' role in event structure. We investigated this question by manipulating the depictions of Agents and Patients in preparatory actions in wordless visual narratives. We found that Agents elicited a greater degree of predictions regarding upcoming events than Patients, that Agents are viewed longer than Patients, independent of serial order, and that visual depictions of actions are processed more quickly following the presentation of an Agent vs. a Patient. Taken together these findings support the notion that Agents initiate the building of event representation. We suggest that Agent First orders facilitate the interpretation of events as they unfold and that the saliency of Agents within visual representations of events is driven by anticipation of upcoming events.
authors: Center for Research in Language, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. Electronic address: neilcohn@visuallanguagelab.com.
authors: Neil
authors: N
authors: Cohn
authors: Martin
authors: M
authors: Paczynski
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D002359:Cartoons as Topic / Q000523:psychology; D032882:Comprehension; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007802:Language; D008297:Male; D033262:Narration; D010775:Photic Stimulation; D012660:Semantics; D014796:Visual Perception; D055815:Young Adult
keywords: Comics; Event structure; Narrative; Semantic roles; Structure building; Visual language
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2001 Feb 1;5(2):55-61
references: 11166635
references: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2013 Aug;142(3):880-905
references: 22984951
references: Cogn Psychol. 2003 Sep;47(2):164-203
references: 12948517
references: Psychol Sci. 2003 Jul;14(4):296-301
references: 12807400
references: J Mem Lang. 1988 Dec;27(6):699-717
references: 25520541
references: Neuropsychologia. 1999 Apr;37(4):395-402
references: 10215086
references: Psychol Sci. 2007 Jun;18(6):487-91
references: 17576259
references: Mem Cognit. 1982 Jul;10(4):381-8
references: 7132715
references: Cognition. 1980 Mar;8(1):1-71
references: 7363578
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1990 May;16(3):430-45
references: 2140402
references: Mem Cognit. 1974 Jan;2(1):117-20
references: 24214708
references: Neuropsychologia. 1995 May;33(5):643-8
references: 7637858
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2008 Feb;12(2):72-9
references: 18178125
references: Child Dev. 1980 Mar;51(1):89-96
references: 7363753
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1986 Jan;12(1):82-91
references: 2949049
references: Science. 1983 Jul 22;221(4608):372-4
references: 6867713
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Jul 8;105(27):9163-8
references: 18599445
references: Cogn Psychol. 1985 Jul;17(3):324-363
references: 25308975
references: Psychol Res. 2007 Jul;71(4):458-66
references: 16215744
references: Mem Cognit. 2005 Dec;33(8):1357-67
references: 16615383
references: Cogn Sci. 2013 Apr;37(3):413-52
references: 23163777
references: Cogn Psychol. 2002 Nov;45(3):375-412
references: 12480479
references: Lang Cogn. 2010 May;2(1):79-116
references: 20802833
references: Science. 1977 Jul 22;197(4301):401-3
references: 877567
references: Mem Cognit. 1991 Jan;19(1):95-112
references: 2017035
references: Neuropsychologia. 1995 Nov;33(11):1565-74
references: 8584186
references: J Cogn Neurosci. 2008 Nov;20(11):2037-57
references: 18416681
references: Cogn Psychol. 2012 Aug;65(1):1-38
references: 22387723