In the eye of the listener: pupil dilation elucidates discourse processing.

The current study investigated cognitive resource allocation in discourse processing by means of pupil dilation and behavioral measures. Short question-answer dialogs were presented to listeners. Either the context question queried a new information focus in the successive answer, or else the context query was corrected in the answer sentence (correction information). The information foci contained in the answer sentences were either adequately highlighted by prosodic means or not. Participants had to judge the adequacy of the focus prosody with respect to the preceding context question. Prosodic judgment accuracy was higher in the conditions bearing adequate focus prosody than in the conditions with inadequate focus prosody. Latency to peak pupil dilation was longer when new information foci were perceived compared to correction foci. Moreover, for the peak dilation, an interaction of focus type and prosody was found. Post hoc statistical tests revealed that prosodically adequate correction focus positions were processed with smaller peak dilation in comparison to all other dialog conditions. Thus, pupil dilation and results of a principal component analysis suggest an interaction of focus type and focus prosody in discourse processing.

[1]  John Kingston,et al.  Salient pitch cues in the perception of contrastive focus , 1994 .

[2]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  An integrative theory of locus coeruleus-norepinephrine function: adaptive gain and optimal performance. , 2005, Annual review of neuroscience.

[3]  Philip R. Cohen,et al.  Intentions in Communication. , 1992 .

[4]  A. Friederici.  Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[5]  E. Granholm,et al.  Pupillary responses and attentional allocation problems on the backward masking task in schizophrenia. , 2004, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[6]  C. Clifton,et al.  Focus, Accent, and Argument Structure: Effects on Language Comprehension , 1995, Language and speech.

[7]  J. Beatty,et al.  The pupillary system. , 2000 .

[8]  Isabell Wartenburger,et al.  Resource allocation and fluid intelligence: insights from pupillometry. , 2010, Psychophysiology.

[9]  Candace L. Sidner,et al.  Attention, Intentions, and the Structure of Discourse , 1986, CL.

[10]  Ulrike Toepel,et al.  Inadequate and infrequent are not alike: ERPs to deviant prosodic patterns in spoken sentence comprehension , 2008, Brain and Language.

[11]  M. Just,et al.  Neuroindices of cognitive workload: Neuroimaging, pupillometric and event-related potential studies of brain work , 2003 .

[12]  Antje Nuthmann,et al.  Time's arrow and pupillary response. , 2005, Psychophysiology.

[13]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Influence of Prosodic Information on the Processing of Split Particles: ERP Evidence from Spoken German , 2005, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[14]  E. Granholm,et al.  Pupillary responses on the visual backward masking task reflect general cognitive ability. , 2004, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[15]  Tinka Welke,et al.  I spy with my little eye: detection of temporal violations in event sequences and the pupillary response. , 2010, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[16]  J. K. Bock,et al.  Intonational marking of given and new information: Some consequences for comprehension , 1983, Memory & cognition.

[17]  A. Jacobs,et al.  Pupillary responses during lexical decisions vary with word frequency but not emotional valence. , 2007, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[18]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Processing focus structure and implicit prosody during reading: Differential ERP effects , 2007, Cognition.

[19]  Kai Alter,et al.  How prosody can influence sentence perception , 2004 .

[20]  Anita Steube,et al.  Kontrastprosodie in Sprachproduktion und –perzeption. , 2001 .

[21]  Elisabeth Selkirk,et al.  Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure , 1984 .

[22]  E. Grabe,et al.  Prosody, phonology and parsing in closure ambiguities , 1995 .

[23]  Matthias Schlesewsky,et al.  Contextual information modulates initial processes of syntactic integration: the role of inter- versus intrasentential predictions. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[24]  W. Cooper,et al.  Acoustical aspects of contrastive stress in question-answer contexts. , 1985, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  Stefan Heim,et al.  Prosodic pitch accents in language comprehension and production: ERP data and acoustic analyses. , 2006, Acta neurobiologiae experimentalis.

[26]  Risto Näätänen,et al.  Effects of prosodic familiarity on the automatic processing of words in the human brain. , 2009, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[27]  E. Couper-Kuhlen.  An introduction to English prosody , 1986 .

[28]  F. Klix,et al.  Gedächtnis, Wissen, Wissensnutzung , 1984 .

[29]  W. Levelt,et al.  Pupillary dilation as a measure of attention: a quantitative system analysis , 1993 .

[30]  G. Redeker,et al.  Fill the Gap! Combining Pragmatic and Prosodic Information to Make Gapping Easy , 2009, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[31]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Handbook Of Psychophysiology , 2019 .

[32]  Ann Cutler,et al.  Prosody in the Comprehension of Spoken Language: A Literature Review , 1997, Language and speech.

[33]  Anita Steube,et al.  Information structure : theoretical and empirical aspects , 2004 .

[34]  A. Wingfield,et al.  Pupillometry as a measure of cognitive effort in younger and older adults. , 2010, Psychophysiology.

[35]  Maria Polinsky,et al.  Violations of information structure: An electrophysiological study of answers to wh-questions , 2007, Brain and Language.

[36]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Handbook of psychophysiology (2nd ed.). , 2000 .

[37]  Elena G. Patsenko,et al.  The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Pupillometry Reveals Processing Load during Spoken Language Comprehension , 2022 .

[38]  F. Krueger,et al.  Cognitive resource allocation for neural activity underlying mathematical cognition: a multi-method study , 2010 .

[39]  D. Crystal,et al.  Intonation and Grammar in British English , 1967 .

[40]  S Oviatt,et al.  Modeling global and focal hyperarticulation during human-computer error resolution. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[41]  S. Nooteboom,et al.  Accents, focus distribution, and the perceived distribution of given and new information: An experiment. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[42]  Gina R. Kuperberg,et al.  Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax , 2007, Brain Research.

[43]  M. Gernsbacher,et al.  Cataphoric Devices in Spoken Discourse , 1995, Cognitive Psychology.

[44]  Benny B. Briesemeister,et al.  The pseudohomophone effect: Evidence for an orthography–phonology-conflict , 2009, Neuroscience Letters.

[45]  A. Friederici,et al.  Lateralization of auditory language functions: A dynamic dual pathway model , 2004, Brain and Language.

[46]  Wallace L. Chafe,et al.  Language and Consciousness. , 1974 .

[47]  A. Friederici,et al.  Late interaction of syntactic and prosodic processes in sentence comprehension as revealed by ERPs. , 2005, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[48]  Emiel Krahmer,et al.  On the alleged existence of contrastive accents , 2001, Speech Commun..

[49]  Ulrike Toepel,et al.  Catching the news: Processing strategies in listening to dialogs as measured by ERPs , 2007, Behavioral and Brain Functions.

[50]  Hsuan-Chih Chen,et al.  Brain Responses to Segmentally and Tonally Induced Semantic Violations in Cantonese , 2005, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[51]  P. Hagoort.  The fractionation of spoken language understanding by measuring electrical and magnetic brain signals , 2008, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[52]  J. Beatty.  Task-evoked pupillary responses, processing load, and the structure of processing resources. , 1982 .

[53]  Tinka Welke,et al.  Investigating dimensional organization in scripts using the pupillary response. , 2007, Psychophysiology.

[54]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Brain potentials indicate immediate use of prosodic cues in natural speech processing , 1999, Nature Neuroscience.

[55]  Anne Lacheret,et al.  On-line Processing of Pop-Out Words in Spoken French Dialogues , 2005, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[56]  Magnus Lindgren,et al.  Brain Talk : discourse with and in the brain : papers from the first Birgit Rausing Language Program Conference in Linguistics, Lund, June 2008 , 2009 .

[57]  A J Schafer,et al.  Intonational Disambiguation in Sentence Production and Comprehension , 2000, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[58]  Caroline Féry,et al.  German intonational patterns , 1993 .