Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 29, Issue 6, pp 557–580 | Cite as

Eye Movements and Lexical Access in Spoken-Language Comprehension: Evaluating a Linking Hypothesis between Fixations and Linguistic Processing

  • Michael K. Tanenhaus
  • James S. Magnuson
  • Delphine Dahan
  • Craig Chambers
Article

Abstract

A growing number of researchers in the sentence processing community are using eye movements to address issues in spoken language comprehension. Experiments using this paradigm have shown that visually presented referential information, including properties of referents relevant to specific actions, influences even the earliest moments of syntactic processing. Methodological concerns about task-specific strategies and the linking hypothesis between eye movements and linguistic processing are identified and discussed. These concerns are addressed in a review of recent studies of spoken word recognition which introduce and evaluate a detailed linking hypothesis between eye movements and lexical access. The results provide evidence about the time course of lexical activation that resolves some important theoretical issues in spoken-word recognition. They also demonstrate that fixations are sensitive to properties of the normal language-processing system that cannot be attributed to task-specific strategies.

Keywords

Cognitive Psychology Word Recognition Processing Community Lexical Access Theoretical Issue 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Allopenna, P., Magnuson, J. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye-movements: evidence for continuous mapping models. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 419–439.Google Scholar
  2. Altmann, G. T. M. (1998). Ambiguity in sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 146–152.Google Scholar
  3. Altmann, G. T. M., Haywood, S., & Kamide, Y. (2000). Anticipating grammatical function: Evidence from eye movements. Paper presented at the 13th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, La Jolla, California.Google Scholar
  4. Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247–264.Google Scholar
  5. Altmann, G. T. M., & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30, 191–238.Google Scholar
  6. Arnold, J. E., Eisenband, J. G., Brown-Schmidt, S., & Trueswell, J. C. (2000). The rapid use of gender information: Evidence of the time course of pronoun resolution from eyetracking. Cognition, 76, B13–B26.Google Scholar
  7. Chambers, C. G., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Magnuson, J. S. (2000). Does real-world knowledge modulate referential effects on PP-attachment? Evidence from eye movements in spoken language comprehension. Paper presented at the 13th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, La Jolla, California.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, H. H. (1992). Arenas of language use. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cooper, R. M. (1974). The control of eye fixation by the meaning of spoken language. A new methodology for the real-time investigation of speech perception, memory, and language processing. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 84–107.Google Scholar
  10. Crain, S., & Steedman, M. J. (1985). On not being led up the garden path. In D. Dowty, L. Kartunnen & A. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language parsing (pp. 320–358). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dahan, D., Magnuson, J. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. Time course of frequency effects in spokenword recognition: evidence from eye movements, submitted.Google Scholar
  12. Dahan, D., Magnuson, J. S., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Hogan, E. Subcategorical mismatches and the time course of lexical access: Evidence for lexical competition. Language and Cognitive Processes, in press.Google Scholar
  13. Dahan, D., Swingley, D., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Magnuson, J. S. (2000). Linguistic gender and spoken-word recognition in French. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 465–480.Google Scholar
  14. Eberhard, K. M. (1998). Watching speakers speak: Using eye movements to study language production. Invited paper presented at the 70th Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
  15. Eberhard, K. M., Spivey-Knowlton, M., Sedivy, J., & Tanenhaus, M. (1995). Eye movements as a window into real-time spoken language comprehension in natural contexts. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 409–436.Google Scholar
  16. Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348–368.Google Scholar
  17. Fodor, J. A. (1983). Modularity of mind. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Francis, W. N., & Kucera, H (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage: Lexicon and grammar. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  19. Gaskell, M. G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1997). Integrating form and meaning: A distributed model of speech perception. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 613–656.Google Scholar
  20. Gibson E., & Pearlmutter, N. (1998). Constraints on sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Science, 2, 262–268.Google Scholar
  21. Gilbert, C. D. (1998). Adult cortical dynamics. Physiological Review, 78, 467–485.Google Scholar
  22. Gottlieb, J., Kusunoki, M., & Goldberg, M. E. (1998). The representation of visual salience in monkey posterior parietal cortex. Nature, (London) 391, 481–484.Google Scholar
  23. Griffin, Z. M., & Bock, K. (2000). What the eyes say about speaking. Psychological Science, 11, 274–279.Google Scholar
  24. Hayhoe, M. (2000). Vision using routines: A functional account of vision. Visual Cognition, 7, 43–64.Google Scholar
  25. Hurewitz, F., Brown-Schmidt, S., Gleitman, L., & Trueswell, J. C. (2000). When production precedes comprehension: Children fail to understand constructions that they freely and accurately produce. Paper presented at the 13th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, La Jolla, California.Google Scholar
  26. Kako. E., & Trueswell, J. C. (2000). Mapping referential competition and the rapid use of verb semantic constraints. Poster presented at the 13th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, La Jolla, California.Google Scholar
  27. Luce, R. D. (1959). Individual choice behavior. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: The Neighborhood Activation Model. Ear & Hearing, 19, 1–36.Google Scholar
  29. Magnuson, J. S., Tanenhaus, M. K., Aslin, R. N., & Dahan, D. (1999). Spoken word recognition in the visual world paradigm reflects the structure of the entire lexicon. In M. Hahn & S. Stoness (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty First Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 331–336). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Marslen-Wilson, W. (1987). Functional parallelism in spoken word-recognition. Cognition, 25, 71–102.Google Scholar
  31. Marslen-Wilson, W. (1990). Activation, competition, and frequency in lexical access. In G. T. M. Altmann (Ed.), Cognitive models of speech processing. Psycholinguistic and computational perspectives (pp. 148–172). Hove, UK: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. Marslen-Wilson, W. (1993). Issues of process and representation in lexical access. In G. T. M. Altmann, and R. Shillcock (Eds.), Cognitive models of speech processing: The Second Sperlonga Meeting. (pp. 187–210). Hove, England UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  33. Marslen-Wilson, W., & Warren, P. (1994). Levels of perceptual representation and process in lexical access: Words, phonemes, and features. Psychological Review, 101, 653–675.Google Scholar
  34. Matin, E., Shao, K., & Boff, K. (1993). Saccadic overhead: information processing time with and without saccades. Perception & Psychophysics, 53, 372–380.Google Scholar
  35. McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1–86.Google Scholar
  36. McQueen, J. M., Norris, D., & Cutler, A. (1999). Lexical influence in phonetic decision making: evidence from subcategorical mismatches. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1363–1389.Google Scholar
  37. Meyer, A. S., Sleiderink, A. M., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1999). Viewing and naming objects: eye movements during noun phrase production. Cognition, 66, B25–B33.Google Scholar
  38. Nadig, A., & Sedivy, J. C. (2000). Children's use of referential pragmatic constraints in production and processing. Paper presented at the 13th CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, La Jolla, California.Google Scholar
  39. Nicol, J., & Swinney, D. (1989). The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 5–19.Google Scholar
  40. Norris, D. (1994). Shortlist: a connectionist model of continuous speech recognition. Cognition, 52, 189–234.Google Scholar
  41. Norris, D., McQueen, J. M., & Cutler, A. (2000). Merging information in speech recognition: feedback is never necessary. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 23, 299–370.Google Scholar
  42. Pollack, I., Rubenstein, H., & Decker, L. (1959). Intelligibility of known and unknown message sets. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 31, 273–279.Google Scholar
  43. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422.Google Scholar
  44. Runner, J. T., Sussman, R., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2000). Binding reflexives and pronouns in real-time processing. Poster presented at the 13th Annual CUNY Conference on Humand Sentence Processing, La Jolla, California.Google Scholar
  45. Sedivy, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., Chambers, C. G., & Carlson, G. N. (1999). Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation. Cognition, 71, 109–147.Google Scholar
  46. Simons, D. J. (2000). Change blindness and visual memory. Visual Cognition, [S.I] 7, 1–416.Google Scholar
  47. Sommers, M. S., Kirk, K. I., & Pisoni, D. B. (1997). Some consideration in evaluating spoken word recognition by normal-hearing, noise-masked normal hearing, and cochlear implant listeners. I: The effects of response format. Ear and Hearing, 18, 89–99.Google Scholar
  48. Spivey-Knowlton, M. J. (1996). Integration of visual and linguistic information: Human data and model simulations. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Rochester.Google Scholar
  49. Spivey, M. J., & Marian, V. (1999). Cross talk between native and second languages: Partial activation of an irrelevant lexicon. Psychological Science, 10, 281–284.Google Scholar
  50. Spivey, M. J., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in discourse: Modeling the effects of referential context and lexical frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1521–1543.Google Scholar
  51. Spivey, M. J., Tanenhaus, M. K., Eberhard, K. E., & Sedivy, J. C. (2000). Eye movements and spoken language comprehension: Effects of visual context on syntactic ambiguity resolution. Cognitive Psychology, in press.Google Scholar
  52. Streeter, L. A., & Nigro, G. N. (1979). The role of medial consonant transitions in word perception. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 65, 1533–1541.Google Scholar
  53. Sussman, R., & Sedivy, J. C. (2000). Using eyetracking to detect and describe failed gap effects. Poster presented at the 13th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, La Jolla, California.Google Scholar
  54. Tanenhaus, M. K., Dahan, D., Magnuson, J. S., & Hogan, E. (2000). Tracking the time course of subcategorical mismatches on lexical access. Paper presented at the 13th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, La Jolla, California.Google Scholar
  55. Tanenhaus, M. K., & Spivey-Knowlton, M. J. (1996). Eye-tracking. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 583–588.Google Scholar
  56. Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 1632–1634.Google Scholar
  57. Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1996). Using eye movements to study spoken language comprehension: Evidence for visually mediated incremental interpretation. In T. Inui & J. McClelland (Eds.), Attention & performance XVI: Integration in perception and communication. (pp. 457–478). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  58. Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., & Hanna, J. E. (2000). Modeling thematic and discourse context effects on syntactic ambiguity resolution within a multiple constraints framework: Implications for the architecture of the language processing system. In M. Pickering, C. Clifton, & M. Crocker (Eds.), Architecture and mechanisms of the language processing system. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Tanenhaus, M. K., & Trueswell, J. (1995). Sentence comprehension. In J. Miller & P. Eimas (Eds.), Speech, language, and communication (pp. 217–595). San Diego, California: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  60. Trueswell, J. C., Sekerina, I., Hill, N., & Logrip, M. (1999). The kindergarten-path effect: Studying on-line sentence processing in young children. Cognition, 73, 89–134.Google Scholar
  61. Whalen, D. H. (1984). Subcategorical phonetic mismatches slow phonetic judgments. Perception & Psychophysics, 35, 49–64.Google Scholar
  62. Whalen, D. H. (1991). Subcategorical phonetic mismatches and lexical access. Perception & Psychophysics, 50, 351–360.Google Scholar
  63. Yee, E., Blumstein, S., & Sedivy, J. C. (2000). The time course of lexical activation in Broca's aphasia: Evidence from eye movements. Poster presented at the 13th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, La Jolla, California.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael K. Tanenhaus
    • 1
  • James S. Magnuson
    • 2
  • Delphine Dahan
    • 3
  • Craig Chambers
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Brain and Cognitive SciencesUniversity of RochesterRochester
  2. 2.Department of Brain and Cognitive SciencesUniversity of RochesterRochester
  3. 3.Max Planck Institute for PsycholinguisticsNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations