Advances in Psychological Science ›› 2023, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (11): 2050-2062.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2023.02050
• Regular Articles • Previous Articles Next Articles
WEI Yipu
Received:
2023-02-06
Online:
2023-11-15
Published:
2023-08-28
CLC Number:
WEI Yipu. Visual world paradigm reveals the time course of spoken language processing[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2023, 31(11): 2050-2062.
[1] 林桐, 王娟. (2018). 基于视觉情境范式的口语词汇理解研究进展. [2] 邱丽景, 王穗苹, 关心. (2009). 口语理解的视觉–情境范式研究. [3] Allopenna P. D., Magnuson J. S.,& Tanenhaus, M. K.(1998). Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models. [4] Altmann G. T.M.(2004). Language-mediated eye movements in the absence of a visual world: The “blank screen paradigm.” [5] Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. [6] Altmann G. T.M., & Kamide, Y.(2007). The real-time mediation of visual attention by language and world knowledge: Linking anticipatory (and other) eye movements to linguistic processing. [7] Altmann, G. T. M., & Mirković, J. (2009). Incrementality and prediction in human sentence processing. [8] 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. [9] Barr D. J., Jackson L., & Phillips I. (2014). Using a voice to put a name to a face: The psycholinguistics of proper name comprehension. [10] Canseco-Gonzalez E., Brehm L., Brick C. A., Brown- Schmidt S., Fischer K., & Wagner K. (2010). Carpet or cárcel: The effect of age of acquisition and language mode on bilingual lexical access. [11] Chambers C. G., Tanenhaus M. K., Eberhard K. M., Filip H.,& Carlson, G. N.(2002). Circumscribing referential domains during real-time language comprehension. [12] Chambers C. G., Tanenhaus M. K., & Magnuson J. S. (2004). Actions and affordances in syntactic ambiguity resolution. [13] Chow W. Y.,& Chen, D.(2020). Predicting (in)correctly: Listeners rapidly use unexpected information to revise their predictions. [14] Cooper, R. M. (1974). The control of eye fixation by the meaning of spoken Language. [15] Corps R. E., Brooke C.,& Pickering, M. J.(2021). Prediction involves two stages: Evidence from visual-world eye-tracking. [16] Cozijn R., Commandeur E., Vonk W.,& Noordman, L. G.(2011). The time course of the use of implicit causality information in the processing of pronouns: A visual world paradigm study. [17] Dahan, D., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2004). Continuous mapping from sound to meaning in spoken-language comprehension: Immediate effects of verb-based thematic constraints. [18] Degen, J., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2015). Processing scalar implicature: A constraint-based approach. [19] Degen, J., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2016). Availability of alternatives and the processing of scalar implicatures: A visual world eye-tracking study. [20] DeLong K. A., Urbach T. P., & Kutas M. (2005). Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. [21] Eichert N., Peeters D., & Hagoort P. (2018). Language- driven anticipatory eye movements in virtual reality. [22] Ferreira F., Foucart A.,& Engelhardt, P. E.(2013). Language processing in the visual world: Effects of preview, visual complexity, and prediction. [23] Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), [24] Gardner B., Dix S., Lawrence R., Morgan C., Sullivan A., & Kurumada C. (2021). Online pragmatic interpretations of scalar adjectives are affected by perceived speaker reliability. [25] Garnham A., Traxler M., Oakhill J.,& Gernsbacher, M. A.(1996). The locus of implicit causality effects in comprehension. [26] Grüter T., Lau E.,& Ling, W.(2020). How classifiers facilitate predictive processing in L1 and L2 Chinese: The role of semantic and grammatical cues. [27] Hanna J. E.,& Tanenhaus, M. K.(2004). Pragmatic effects on reference resolution in a collaborative task: Evidence from eye movements. [28] Henderson J. M.,& Ferreira, F. (2004). Scene perception for psycholinguists. In J. M. Henderson & F. Ferreira (Eds.), The interface of language, vision, and action: Eye movements and the visual world (pp. 1-58). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203488430. [29] Henry N., Jackson C. N., & Hopp H. (2022). Cue coalitions and additivity in predictive processing: The interaction between case and prosody in L2 German. [30] Heyselaar E., Peeters D.,& Hagoort, P.(2020). Do we predict upcoming speech content in naturalistic environments? [31] Huang, Y., & Snedeker, J. (2020). Evidence from the visual world paradigm raises questions about unaccusativity and growth curve analyses. [32] Huang, Y. T., & Snedeker, J. (2009). Semantic meaning and pragmatic interpretation in 5-year-olds: Evidence from real-time spoken language comprehension. [33] Huang Y. T.,& Snedeker, J.(2011). Logic and conversation revisited: Evidence for a division between semantic and pragmatic content in real-time language comprehension. [34] Huettig F.,& Guerra, E.(2019). Effects of speech rate, preview time of visual context, and participant instructions reveal strong limits on prediction in language processing. [35] Huettig F.,& McQueen, J. M.(2007). The tug of war between phonological, semantic and shape information in language-mediated visual search. [36] Huettig, F., Olivers, C. N.L., & Hartsuiker, R. J.(2011a). Looking, language, and memory: Bridging research from the visual world and visual search paradigms. [37] Huettig F., Rommers J.,& Meyer, A. S.(2011b). Using the visual world paradigm to study language processing: A review and critical evaluation. [38] Ito, A., & Knoeferle, P. (2022). Analysing data from the psycholinguistic visual-world paradigm: Comparison of different analysis methods. [39] Ito A., Pickering M. J.,& Corley, M.(2018). Investigating the time-course of phonological prediction in native and non-native speakers of English: A visual world eye- tracking study. [40] Kaan, E., & Grüter, T. (2021). Prediction in second language processing and learning: Advances and directions. In E. Kaan & T. Grüter (Eds.), [41] Kaiser, E. (2016). Discourse-level Processing. In P. Knoeferle, P. Pyykkönen-Klauck, & M. W. Crocker (Eds.), Visually situated language comprehension (pp. 151-184). John Benjamins Publishing. [42] Kamide Y., Scheepers C., & Altmann, G. T. M. (2003). Integration of syntactic and semantic information in predictive processing: Cross-linguistic evidence from German and English. [43] Karimi H., Brothers T.,& Ferreira, F.(2019). Phonological versus semantic prediction in focus and repair constructions: No evidence for differential predictions. [44] Knoeferle, P., & Crocker, M. W. (2006). The coordinated interplay of scene, utterance, and world knowledge: Evidence from eye tracking. [45] Knoeferle P.,& Crocker, M. W.(2007). The influence of recent scene events on spoken comprehension: Evidence from eye movements. [46] Knoeferle P., Crocker M. W., Scheepers C.,& Pickering, M. J.(2005). The influence of the immediate visual context on incremental thematic role-assignment: Evidence from eye-movements in depicted events. [47] Koornneef, A. W., & van Berkum, J. J. A. (2006). On the use of verb-based implicit causality in sentence comprehension: Evidence from self-paced reading and eye tracking. [48] Koring L., Mak P.,& Reuland, E.(2012). The time course of argument reactivation revealed: Using the visual world paradigm. [49] Kukona, A. (2020). Lexical constraints on the prediction of form: Insights from the visual world paradigm. [50] Kuperberg G. R.,& Jaeger, T. F.(2016). What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension? [51] Levinson S. C.(2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. MIT Press. [52] Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. [53] Li X., Li X., & Qu Q. (2022). Predicting phonology in language comprehension: Evidence from the visual world eye-tracking task in Mandarin Chinese. [54] Magnuson, J. S. (2019). Fixations in the visual world paradigm: Where, when, why? [55] Magnuson J. S., Tanenhaus M. K., Aslin R. N., & Dahan D. (2003). The time course of spoken word learning and recognition: Studies with artificial lexicons. [56] Mak W. M., Tribushinina E., Lomako J., Gagarina N., Abrosova E., & Sanders T. (2017). Connective processing by bilingual children and monolinguals with specific language impairment: Distinct profiles. [57] Matin E., Shao K. C., & Boff K. R. (1993). Saccadic overhead: Information-processing time with and without saccades. [58] McMurray, B., Samelson, V. M., Lee, S. H., & Tomblin, J. B.(2010). Individual differences in online spoken word recognition: Implications for SLI. [59] McRae, K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., & Tanenhaus, M. K.(1998). Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on-line sentence comprehension. [60] Millis K. K.,& Just, M. A.(1994). The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. [61] Mirman, D. (2014). Growth Curve Analysis and Visualization Using R. CRC Press.. [62] Mirman D., Dixon J. A.,& Magnuson, J. S.(2008). Statistical and computational models of the visual world paradigm: Growth curves and individual differences. [63] Nieuwland M. S., Politzer-Ahles S., Heyselaar E., Segaert K., Darley E., Kazanina N., .. Huettig F. (2018). Large-scale replication study reveals a limit on probabilistic prediction in language comprehension. [64] Porretta V., Kyröläinen A.-J., van Rij J., & Järvikivi J. (2018). Visual world paradigm data: From preprocessing to nonlinear time-course analysis. In I. Czarnowski, R. Howlett, & L. Jain (Eds.), [65] Pickering, M. J., & Gambi, C. (2018). Predicting while comprehending language: A theory and review. [66] Pyykkönen, P., & Järvikivi, J. (2010). Activation and persistence of implicit causality information in spoken language comprehension. [67] Pyykkönen-Klauck, P., & Crocker, M. W. (2016). Attention and eye movement metrics in visual world eye tracking. In P. Knoeferle, P. Pyykkönen-Klauck, & M. W. Crocker (Eds.), Visually Situated Language Comprehension (pp. 67-82). John Benjamins Publishing. [68] Rayner, K. (1978). Eye movements in reading and information processing. [69] Runner J. T., Sussman R. S., & Tanenhaus M. K. (2003). Assignment of reference to reflexives and pronouns in picture noun phrases: Evidence from eye movements. [70] Salverda A. P., Brown M.,& Tanenhaus, M. K.(2011). A goal-based perspective on eye movements in visual world studies. [71] Salverda, A. P., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2017). The visual world paradigm. In A. M. B. de Groot & P. Hagoort (Eds.), [72] Saryazdi, R., & Chambers, C. G. (2021). Real-time communicative perspective taking in younger and older adults. [73] Saslow, M. G. (1967). Latency of saccadic eye movement. [74] Seedorff M., Oleson J.,& McMurray, B.(2018). Detecting when timeseries differ: Using the bootstrapped differences of timeseries (BDOTS) to analyze visual world paradigm data (and more). [75] Snedeker J.,& Trueswell, J. C.(2004). The developing constraints on parsing decisions: The role of lexical-biases and referential scenes in child and adult sentence processing. [76] Stewart A. J., Pickering M. J.,& Sanford, A. J.(2000). The time course of the influence of implicit causality information: Focusing versus integration accounts. [77] Stone K., Lago S., & Schad D. J. (2021). Divergence point analyses of visual world data: Applications to bilingual research. [78] Tanenhaus M. K., Magnuson J. S., Dahan D., & Chambers C. (2000). Eye movements and lexical access in spoken-language comprehension: Evaluating a linking hypothesis between fixations and linguistic processing. [79] Tanenhaus M. K., Spivey-Knowlton M. J., Eberhard K. M., & Sedivy J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. [80] Traxler M. J., Bybee M. D., & Pickering M. J. (1997). Influence of connectives on language comprehension: Eye tracking evidence for incremental interpretation. [81] Trueswell J. C., Tanenhaus M. K.,& Garnsey, S. M.(1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. [82] Weber, A., & Cutler, A. (2004). Lexical competition in non-native spoken-word recognition. [83] Wei Y., Mak W. M.,Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. J. M.(2019). Causal connectives as indicators of source information: Evidence from the visual world paradigm. |
[1] | Genying Huang, Yafang Li. Identification of Depression in Old Age Based on Eye Movement Characteristics [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2023, 31(suppl.): 142-142. |
[2] | KOU Juan, YANG Mengyuan, WEI Zijie, LEI Yi. The social motivation theory of autism spectrum disorder: Exploring mechanisms and interventions [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2023, 31(1): 20-32. |
[3] | WEI Zi-Han, LI Xingshan. Decision Process Tracing: Evidence from Eye-movement Data [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2015, 23(12): 2029-2041. |
[4] | ZHANG Yang-Yang;RAO Li-Lin;LIANG Zhu-Yuan;ZHOU Yuan;LI Shu. Process Test of Risky Decision Making: New Understanding, New Evidence Pitting Non-compensatory Against Compensatory Models [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2014, 22(2): 205-219. |
[5] |
Zhou Xiangxian;Jin Zhicheng.
Researches on Consumers’ Visual Attention to Print Advertisements Using Eye-Tracking Methodology [J]. , 2006, 14(2): 287-. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||