Conventional opinion about using Rapid Serial Visual Presentation (RSVP) for examining sentence comprehension maintains that RSVP taxes working memory (WM), which probably affects sentence processing. However, most RSVP studies only infer the involvement of WM. Other cognitive resources, such as cognitive control or vocabulary may also impact sentence comprehension and interact with RSVP. Further, sentence ambiguity is predicted to interact with RSVP and cognitive resources to impact sentence comprehension. To test these relationships, participants read ambiguous and unambiguous sentences using RSVP and Whole-Sentence presentation, followed by comprehension questions that were targeted to the ambiguous region of the sentences. Presentation type and ambiguity interacted to affect RT such that the effect of RSVP was exaggerated for ambiguous sentences. RT effects were moderated by WM and vocabulary. WM and cognitive control affected accuracy. Findings are discussed in light of depth of processing and the impact of cognitive resources on sentence comprehension.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36(3), 189–208.
Braze, D., Katz, L., Magnuson, J. S., Einar Mencl, W., Tabor, W., Van Dyke, J. A., et al. (2016). Vocabulary does not complicate the simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 29, 435–451.
Caplan, D., & Waters, G. S. (1999). Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(01), 77–94.
Caplan, D., & Waters, G. S. (2005). The relationship between age, processing speed, working memory capacity, and language comprehension. Memory, 13(3–4), 403–413.
Caplan, D., & Waters, G. (2013). Memory mechanisms supporting syntactic comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(2), 243–268.
Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J. F., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42(4), 368–407.
Christianson, K., Luke, S. G., & Ferreira, F. (2010). Effects of plausibility on structural priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(2), 538–544.
Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(5), 769–786. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196772.
Corp, I. B. M. (2013). IBM SPSS statistics for windows (Version 22.0). Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(4), 450–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6.
Engelhardt, P. E., Nigg, J. T., & Ferreira, F. (2017). Executive function and intelligence in the resolution of temporary syntactic ambiguity: An individual differences investigation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(7), 1263–1281.
Engle, R. W., Kane, M. J., & Tuholski, S. W. (1999). Individual differences in working memory capacity and what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid intelligence, and functions of the prefrontal cortex. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 102–134). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Farmer, T. A., Misyak, J. B., & Christiansen, M. H. (2012). Individual differences in sentence processing. In M. Spivey, M. Joannisse, & K. McRae (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 354–365). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fedorenko, E. (2014). The role of domain-general cognitive control in language comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(335), 1–17.
Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. D. (2007). The “good enough” approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(1–2), 71–83.
Forster, K. I. (1970). Visual perception of rapidly presented word sequences of varying complexity. Perception and Psychophysics, 8(4), 215–221.
Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. M. (2000). ERP effects of listening to speech compared to reading: The P600/SPS to syntactic violations in spoken sentences and rapid serial visual presentation. Neuropsychologia, 38(11), 1531–1549. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(00)00053-1.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2002). The role of prefrontal cortex in working-memory capacity, executive attention, and general fluid intelligence: An individual-differences perspective. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 637–671.
Kempler, D., Almor, A., Tyler, L. K., Andersen, E. S., & MacDonald, M. C. (1998). Sentence comprehension deficits in Alzheimer’s disease: A comparison of off-line vs. on-line sentence processing. Brain and Language, 64(3), 297–316.
Key-DeLyria, S., & Altmann, L. J. P. (2016). Executive function and ambiguous sentence comprehension. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 25(2), 252–267.
Lee, D., & Newman, S. D. (2010). The effect of presentation paradigm on syntactic processing: An event-related fMRI study. Human Brain Mapping, 31(1), 65–79.
Locker, L., Hoffman, L., & Bovaird, J. (2007). On the use of multilevel modeling as an alternative to item analysis in psycholinguistic research. Behavior Research Methods, 39(4), 723–730.
MacDonald, M. C., & Christiansen, M. H. (2002). Reassessing working memory: Comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996). Psychological Review, 109(1), 35–54.
Martin, R. C. (2006). The neuropsychology of sentence processing: Where do we stand? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 23(1), 74–95.
Martin, R. C., Yan, H., & Schnur, T. T. (2014). Working memory and planning during sentence production. Acta Psychologica, 152, 120–132.
Miyake, A., Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (1994). A capacity approach to syntactic comprehension disorders: Making normal adults perform like aphasic patients. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 11(6), 671–717.
Nation, P., & Coady, J. (1988). Vocabulary and reading. In R. Carter & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and language teaching (pp. 97–110). New York: Longman.
Nelson, H. G. (1992). National adult reading test (NART): Test manual. Windsor: NFER-Nelson.
Novick, J. M., Hussey, E., Teubner-Rhodes, S., Harbison, J. I., & Bunting, M. F. (2013). Clearing the garden-path: Improving sentence processing through cognitive control training. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(2), 186–217.
Novick, J. M., Trueswell, J. C., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2005). Cognitive control and parsing: Reexamining the role of Broca’s area in sentence comprehension. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 5(3), 263–281.
Nozari, N., Dell, G. S., & Schwartz, M. F. (2011). Is comprehension necessary for error detection? A conflict-based account of monitoring in speech production. Cognitive Psychology, 63(1), 1–33.
Potter, M. C. (1984). Rapid Serial Visual Presentation (RSVP): a method for studying language processing. In D. E. Kieras & M. A. Just (Eds.), New methods in reading comprehension research. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Potter, M. C., Kroll, J. F., & Harris, C. (1980). Comprehension and memory in rapid sequential reading. In R. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and performance VIII (pp. 395–418). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422.
Reitan, R. M. (1958). Validity of the Trail Making Test as an indicator of organic brain damage. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 8, 271–276. https://doi.org/10.2466/PMS.8.7.271-276.
Salthouse, T. A. (1991). Mediation of adult age differences in cognition by reductions in working memory and speed of processing. Psychological Science, 2(3), 179–183.
Sanford, A. J. S., Sanford, A. J., Molle, J., & Emmott, C. (2006). Shallow processing and attention capture in written and spoken discourse. Discourse Processes, 42(2), 109–130.
Schotter, E. R., Tran, R., & Rayner, K. (2014). Don’t believe what you read (only once): Comprehension is supported by regressions during reading. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1218–1226.
Schremm, A., Horne, M., & Roll, M. (2016). Time-driven effects on processing relative clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 45, 1033–1044.
Shipley, W. C. (1940). A self-administering scale for measuring intellectual impairment and deterioration. The Journal of Psychology, 9(2), 371–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1940.9917704.
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643–662. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054651.
Swets, B., Desmet, T., Hambrick, D. Z., & Ferreira, F. (2007). The role of working memory in syntactic ambiguity resolution: A psychometric approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(1), 64–81.
Thothathiri, M., Gagliardi, M., & Schwartz, M. F. (2012). Subdivision of frontal cortex mechanisms for language production in aphasia. Neuropsychologia, 50(14), 3284–3294.
Vuong, L. C., & Martin, R. C. (2014). Domain-specific executive control and the revision of misinterpretations in sentence comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(3), 312–325.
Waters, G. S., & Caplan, D. (1996). Processing resource capacity and the comprehension of garden path sentences. Memory & Cognition, 24(3), 342–355.
Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Third Edition manual. New York: The Psychological Corporation.
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(2), 250–271.
Ye, Z., & Zhou, X. (2008). Involvement of cognitive control in sentence comprehension: Evidence from ERPs. Brain Research, 1203, 103–115.
Ye, Z., & Zhou, X. (2009). Executive control in language processing. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 33(8), 1168–1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.03.003.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Sample Items from the Shipley Vocabulary Task
Instructions: In the test below, the first word in each item is printed in capital letters. Next are four other words. Circle the one word that means the same thing, or most nearly the same thing, as the word in all capital letters.
About this article
Cite this article
Key-DeLyria, S.E., Bodner, T. & Altmann, L.J.P. Rapid Serial Visual Presentation Interacts with Ambiguity During Sentence Comprehension. J Psycholinguist Res 48, 665–682 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-018-09624-9
- Rapid Serial Visual Presentation
- Sentence processing
- Shallow processing
- Working memory
- Executive function