Accounting for regressive eye-movements in models of sentence processing: A reappraisal of the Selective Reanalysis hypothesis

When people read temporarily ambiguous sentences, there is often an increased prevalence of regressive eye-movements launched from the word that resolves the ambiguity. Traditionally, such regressions have been interpreted at least in part as reflecting readers’ efforts to re-read and reconfigure earlier material, as exemplified by the Selective Reanalysis hypothesis [Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178–210]. Within such frameworks it is assumed that the selection of saccadic landing-sites is linguistically supervised. As an alternative to this proposal, we consider the possibility (dubbed the Time Out hypothesis) that regression control is partly decoupled from linguistic operations and that landing-sites are instead selected on the basis of low-level spatial properties such as their proximity to the point from which the regressive saccade was launched. Two eye-tracking experiments were conducted to compare the explanatory potential of these two accounts. Experiment 1 manipulated the formatting of linguistically identical sentences and showed, contrary to purely linguistic supervision, that the landing site of the first regression from a critical word was reliably influenced by the physical layout of the text. Experiment 2 used a fixed physical format but manipulated the position in the display at which reanalysis-relevant material was located. Here the results showed a highly reliable linguistic influence on the overall distribution of regression landing sites (though with few effects being apparent on the very first regression). These results are interpreted as reflecting mutually exclusive forms of regression control with fixation sequences being influenced both by spatially constrained, partially decoupled supervision systems as well as by some kind of linguistic guidance. The findings are discussed in relation to existing computational models of eye-movements in reading.

[1]  Patrick Sturt,et al.  Reanalysis in Sentence Processing , 1998 .

[2]  Janet Dean Fodor,et al.  The diagnosis and cure of garden paths , 1994 .

[3]  W S Murray,et al.  Spatial Coding in the Processing of Anaphor by Good and Poor Readers: Evidence from Eye Movement Analyses , 1988, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[4]  Donald Mitchell,et al.  Lexical guidance in human parsing: Locus and processing characteristics. , 1987 .

[5]  John M. Henderson,et al.  Syntactic Reanalysis, Thematic Processing, and Sentence Comprehension , 1998 .

[6]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. , 1981 .

[7]  John Hale,et al.  The Information Conveyed by Words in Sentences , 2003, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[8]  Reinhold Kliegl,et al.  SWIFT: a dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. , 2005, Psychological review.

[9]  Jeffrey L. Elman,et al.  Cues, Constraints, and Competition in Sentence Processing , 2004 .

[10]  M. Tomasello,et al.  Beyond nature-nurture: Essays in honor of Elizabeth Bates , 2005 .

[11]  Jeffrey L. Elman,et al.  Interactive processes in speech perception: the TRACE model , 1986 .

[12]  K. Rayner,et al.  Eye movements in reading words and sentences , 2007 .

[13]  Wayne S. Murray,et al.  Spatial Coordinates and Reading: Comments on Monk (1985) , 1987 .

[14]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Parsing in a Dynamical System: An Attractor-based Account of the Interaction of Lexical and Structural Constraints in Sentence Processing , 1997 .

[15]  Fernanda Ferreira,et al.  Reanalysis in sentence processing , 1998 .

[16]  Robin K. Morris,et al.  Eye movements and on-line language comprehension processes , 1989 .

[17]  M. Tanenhaus,et al.  Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. , 1993 .

[18]  Arnold L. Glass,et al.  Context and distance-to-disambiguation effects in ambiguity resolution: Evidence from grammaticality judgments of garden path sentences , 1987 .

[19]  M Coltheart,et al.  DRC: a dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. , 2001, Psychological review.

[20]  Erik D. Reichle,et al.  The E-Z Reader model of eye-movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models , 2003, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[21]  D. Mitchell,et al.  Absence of real evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution , 2006 .

[22]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences , 1983 .

[23]  Mark Steedman,et al.  Interaction with context during human sentence processing , 1988, Cognition.

[24]  Suzanne Stevenson,et al.  A Competition-Based Explanation of Syntactic Attachment Preferences and Garden Path Phenomena , 1993, ACL.

[25]  K. Rayner.  Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. , 1998, Psychological bulletin.

[26]  Ralf Engbert,et al.  A dynamical model of saccade generation in reading based on spatially distributed lexical processing , 2002, Vision Research.

[27]  Don C. Mitchell,et al.  Lexical guidance in sentence processing? , 1998 .

[28]  M. Pickering,et al.  Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution , 1998 .

[29]  J. O'Regan,et al.  Eye-movement strategy and tactics in word recognition and reading. , 1987 .

[30]  Adrian Staub,et al.  The parser doesn't ignore intransitivity, after all. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[31]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Learning and Applying Contextual Constraints in Sentence Comprehension , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[32]  John M. Henderson,et al.  Reading processes during syntactic analysis and reanalysis , 1993 .

[33]  E. Gibson.  Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies , 1998, Cognition.

[34]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Understanding normal and impaired word reading: computational principles in quasi-regular domains. , 1996, Psychological review.

[35]  Weijia Ni,et al.  Readers' Eye Movements Distinguish Anomalies of Form and Content , 2002, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[36]  Ulrich W. Weger,et al.  Memory for word location during reading: Eye movements to previously read words are spatially selective but not precise , 2005, Memory & cognition.

[37]  David C. Plaut,et al.  A connectionist model of sentence comprehension and production , 2002 .

[38]  Erik D. Reichle,et al.  Tests of the E-Z Reader model: Exploring the interface between cognition and eye-movement control , 2006, Cognitive Psychology.

[39]  V. Marchman,et al.  U-shaped learning and frequency effects in a multi-layered perception: Implications for child language acquisition , 1991, Cognition.

[40]  M A Just,et al.  A theory of reading: from eye fixations to comprehension. , 1980, Psychological review.

[41]  Erik D. Reichle,et al.  Using E-Z reader to model the effects of higher level language processing on eye movements during reading , 2009, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[42]  C. Clifton,et al.  Overt reanalysis strategies and eye movements during the reading of mild garden path sentences , 2002, Memory & cognition.

[43]  Roger P. G. van Gompel,et al.  Reanalysis in Sentence Processing: Evidence against Current Constraint-Based and Two-Stage Models , 2001 .

[44]  R. Levy.  Expectation-based syntactic comprehension , 2008, Cognition.

[45]  M. Masson.  Using confidence intervals for graphically based data interpretation. , 2003, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[46]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Subject Terms: Linguistics Language Eyes & eyesight Cognition & reasoning , 1995 .

[47]  M. Tanenhaus,et al.  Modeling the Influence of Thematic Fit (and Other Constraints) in On-line Sentence Comprehension , 1998 .

[48]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  An Activation-Based Model of Sentence Processing as Skilled Memory Retrieval , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[49]  Todd R. Ferretti,et al.  Modeling the Role of Plausibility and Verb-bias in the Direct Object/Sentence Complement Ambiguity , 2020, Proceedings of the Twenty First Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.

[50]  M. Pickering,et al.  Structural change and reanalysis difficulty in language comprehension , 1999 .

[51]  Suzanne Stevenson,et al.  Parsing as Incremental Restructuring , 1998 .

[52]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  An Architecturally-based Theory of Human Sentence Comprehension , 2001 .

[53]  Daniel Jurafsky,et al.  A Bayesian Model Predicts Human Parse Preference and Reading Times in Sentence Processing , 2001, NIPS.

[54]  Ulrich W. Weger,et al.  Long-range regressions to previously read words are guided by spatial and verbal memory , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[55]  C. Clifton,et al.  The independence of syntactic processing , 1986 .

[56]  A. Garnham,et al.  Avoiding the garden path: Eye movements in context , 1992 .

[57]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  Processing Polarity: How the Ungrammatical Intrudes on the Grammatical , 2008, Cogn. Sci..

[58]  Joël Pynte,et al.  Reading as a Perceptual Process , 2000 .

[59]  Keith Rayner,et al.  Inhibition of saccade return in reading , 2003, Vision Research.

[60]  Shun-Nan Yang,et al.  An oculomotor-based model of eye movements in reading: The competition/interaction model , 2006, Cognitive Systems Research.

[61]  Guy Thomas Buswell,et al.  Fundamental Reading Habits: A Study of Their Development , 2010 .

[62]  G S Dell,et al.  A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. , 1986, Psychological review.

[63]  Colin M. Brown,et al.  Early referential context effects in sentence processing: Evidence from event-related brain potentials , 1999 .

[64]  Ronan G. Reilly,et al.  Chapter 21 – Foundations of an Interactive Activation Model of Eye Movement Control in Reading , 2003 .

[65]  D. Mitchell,et al.  The Effects of Context and Content on Immediate Processing in Reading , 1978 .

[66]  Philipp Slusallek,et al.  Introduction to real-time ray tracing , 2005, SIGGRAPH Courses.

[67]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Reassessing Working Memory: Comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996) , 2002 .

[68]  A. Hollingworth,et al.  Thematic Roles Assigned along the Garden Path Linger , 2001, Cognitive Psychology.

[69]  Michael J. Spivey,et al.  Syntactic ambiguity resolution in discourse: modeling the effects of referential context and lexical frequency. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[70]  Edward Gibson,et al.  Consequences of the Serial Nature of Linguistic Input for Sentenial Complexity , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[71]  Katherine S. Binder,et al.  The effects of thematic fit and discourse context on syntactic ambiguity resolution , 2001 .

[72]  S. Stoness,et al.  Proceedings of the Twenty First Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society , 1999 .

[73]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  Reanalysis and Limited Repair Parsing: Leaping off the Garden Path , 1998 .

[74]  Alan Kennedy,et al.  Chapter 10 – The Reader's Spatial Code , 2003 .

[75]  G. McConkie,et al.  Regressive Saccades and Word Perception in Adult Reading , 2000 .

[76]  K Rayner,et al.  Regressive eye movements and sentence parsing: On the use of regression-contingent analyses , 1994, Memory & cognition.

[77]  James L. McClelland,et al.  A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. , 1989, Psychological review.

[78]  D. Norris.  Shortlist: a connectionist model of continuous speech recognition , 1994, Cognition.

[79]  M. Just,et al.  From the SelectedWorks of Marcel Adam Just 1992 A capacity theory of comprehension : Individual differences in working memory , 2017 .

[80]  James L. McClelland,et al.  On learning the past-tenses of English verbs: implicit rules or parallel distributed processing , 1986 .

[81]  M. Brysbaert,et al.  The influence of referential discourse context on modifier attachment in Dutch , 2002, Memory & cognition.

[82]  J. Henderson,et al.  Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences ☆ , 1991 .

[83]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Mechanisms of Sentence Processing: Assigning Roles to Constituents of Sentences , 1986 .

[84]  K. Rayner,et al.  Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity , 1986, Memory & cognition.

[85]  Nick Chater,et al.  Connectionist psycholinguistics in perspective , 2001 .

[86]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  Distinguishing effects of structure and decay on attachment and repair: A cue-based parsing account of recovery from misanalyzed ambiguities , 2003 .

[87]  K. Rayner,et al.  The psychology of reading , 1989 .

[88]  K. Rayner,et al.  Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[89]  Erik D. Reichle,et al.  Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. , 1998, Psychological review.

[90]  M. Brysbaert,et al.  Modifier Attachment in Sentence Parsing: Evidence from Dutch , 1996 .

[91]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Modeling Thematic and Discourse Context Effects with a Multiple Constraints Approach: Implications for the Architecture of the Language Comprehension System , 1999 .

[92]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  ON COMPREHENDING SENTENCES: SYNTACTIC PARSING STRATEGIES. , 1979 .

[93]  Nick Chater,et al.  Toward a connectionist model of recursion in human linguistic performance , 1999 .

[94]  Matthew J Traxler,et al.  Plausibility and Verb Subcategorization in Temporarily Ambiguous Sentences: Evidence from Self-Paced Reading , 2005, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[95]  Heiner Deubel,et al.  The mind's eye : cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research , 2003 .