Expectations in counterfactual and theory of mind reasoning

During language comprehension, information about the world is exchanged and processed. Two essential ingredients of everyday cognition that are employed during language comprehension are the ability to reason counterfactually, and the ability to understand and predict other peoples' behaviour by attributing independent mental states to them (theory of mind). We report two visual-world studies investigating the extent to which the constraints of world knowledge and prior context, as established by a counterfactual (Exp. 1) or a false belief situation (Exp. 2), influence eye-movements directed towards objects in a visual field. Proportions of anticipatory eye-movements indicated an initial visual bias towards contextually supported referents in both studies. Thus, we propose that when visual information is available to reinforce linguistic input, participants expect a context-relevant continuation. Shortly after the critical word onset, the linguistically supported referent was visually favoured, with counterfactual (but not false belief) contexts revealing a temporal delay in integrating factually inconsistent language input. Results are discussed in relation to accounts of discourse processing and the processing relationship between counterfactual and theory of mind reasoning. Finally, we compare findings across different experimental paradigms and propose a novel cluster-analytic procedure to identify time-windows of interest in visual-world data.

[1]  Roger M. Cooper,et al.  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. , 1974 .

[2]  J. A. Hartigan,et al.  A k-means clustering algorithm , 1979 .

[3]  Maurice K. Wong,et al.  Algorithm AS136: A k-means clustering algorithm. , 1979 .

[4]  Gilles Fauconnier,et al.  Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language , 1985 .

[5]  Dale T. Miller,et al.  Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives , 1986 .

[6]  A. Leslie.  Pretense and representation: The origins of "theory of mind." , 1987 .

[7]  U. Frrrh.  Autism: explaining the enigma , 1989 .

[8]  A. Leslie.  Pretending and believing: issues in the theory of ToMM , 1994, Cognition.

[9]  David J. Hess,et al.  Effects of global and local context on lexical processing during language comprehension , 1995 .

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

[11]  C. Frith,et al.  Exploring ‘theory of mind’ in people with schizophrenia , 1996, Psychological Medicine.

[12]  Ruth M. J. Byrne,et al.  Cognitive Processes in Counterfactual Thinking about what Might Have Been , 1997 .

[13]  G. Fauconnier.  Mappings in thought and language , 1997 .

[14]  S. Baron-Cohen,et al.  Reading the Windows to the Soul: Evidence of Domain-Specific Sparing in Williams Syndrome , 1998, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[15]  M. Pickering,et al.  Plausibility and recovery from garden paths: An eye-tracking study , 1998 .

[16]  R. Knight,et al.  Frontal Lobe Contributions to Theory of Mind , 1998, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[17]  Donald M. Peterson,et al.  Are errors in false belief tasks symptomatic of a broader difficulty with counterfactuality , 1998 .

[18]  G. Altmann,et al.  Incremental interpretation at verbs: restricting the domain of subsequent reference , 1999, Cognition.

[19]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation , 1999, Cognition.

[20]  Ruth M. J. Byrne,et al.  Deductive reasoning with factual, possible, and counterfactual conditionals , 1999, Memory & cognition.

[21]  Donald M. Peterson,et al.  Counterfactual Reasoning and False Belief Understanding in Children with Autism , 2000 .

[22]  D. Barr,et al.  Taking Perspective in Conversation: The Role of Mutual Knowledge in Comprehension , 2000, Psychological science.

[23]  P. Tetlock,et al.  'I couldn't have known': accountability, foreseeability and counterfactual denials of responsibility. , 2000, The British journal of social psychology.

[24]  G. Dell,et al.  Effect of Ambiguity and Lexical Availability on Syntactic and Lexical Production , 2000, Cognitive Psychology.

[25]  S. Baron-Cohen.  Autism: Deficits in folk psychology exist alongside superiority in folk physics. , 2000 .

[26]  F. Happé,et al.  Acquired mind-blindness following frontal lobe surgery? A single case study of impaired ‘theory of mind’ in a patient treated with stereotactic anterior capsulotomy , 2001, Neuropsychologia.

[27]  Simon Baron-Cohen,et al.  A test of central coherence theory: Can adults with high-functioning autism or Asperger syndrome integrate objects in context? , 2001 .

[28]  C. Polkey,et al.  "Theory of mind" impairments and their relationship to executive functioning following frontal lobe excisions. , 2001, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[29]  D. Stuss,et al.  The frontal lobes are necessary for 'theory of mind'. , 2001, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[30]  Paul Sambre,et al.  Gilles Fauconnier & Mark Turner, " The way we think: conceptual blending and the mind's hidden complexities" , 2002 .

[31]  R. Byrne.  Mental models and counterfactual thoughts about what might have been , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[32]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Evidence of Perspective-Taking Constraints in Children's On-Line Reference Resolution , 2002, Psychological science.

[33]  D. Barr,et al.  Limits on theory of mind use in adults , 2003, Cognition.

[34]  Christoph Scheepers,et al.  Integration of Syntactic and Semantic Information in Predictive Processing: Cross-Linguistic Evidence from German and English , 2003, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[35]  G. Altmann,et al.  The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye-movements , 2003 .

[36]  S. Brennan,et al.  When conceptual pacts are broken: Partner-specific effects on the comprehension of referring expressions , 2003 .

[37]  M. Tanenhaus,et al.  The effects of common ground and perspective on domains of referential interpretation , 2003 .

[38]  C. Frith,et al.  Functional imaging of ‘theory of mind’ , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[39]  Jennifer E. Arnold.  RUNNING HEAD : AVOIDING ATTACHMENT AMBIGUITIES Avoiding Attachment Ambiguities : the Role of Constituent Ordering , 2004 .

[40]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Pragmatic effects on reference resolution in a collaborative task: evidence from eye movements , 2004, Cogn. Sci..

[41]  Christoph Scheepers,et al.  Constituent order priming from reading to listening: a visual-world study , 2004 .

[42]  Rocky Ross,et al.  Mental models , 2004, SIGA.

[43]  Josef Perner,et al.  Counterfactual conditionals and false belief: a developmental dissociation , 2004 .

[44]  Carey K. Morewedge,et al.  Perspective taking in children and adults: Equivalent egocentrism but differential correction , 2004 .

[45]  G. Altmann,et al.  Word meaning and the control of eye fixation: semantic competitor effects and the visual world paradigm , 2005, Cognition.

[46]  M. Pickering,et al.  Do Speakers Avoid Ambiguities During Dialogue? , 2005, Psychological science.

[47]  R. Byrne,et al.  Counterfactual and semifactual conditionals prime alternative possibilities. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[48]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Eye movements to pictures reveal transient semantic activation during spoken word recognition. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[49]  Rolf A. Zwaan,et al.  Processing negated sentences with contradictory predicates: Is a door that is not open mentally closed? , 2006 .

[50]  Mante S. Nieuwland,et al.  When Peanuts Fall in Love: N400 Evidence for the Power of Discourse , 2005, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[51]  Detecting violations in real- and counterfactual- world contexts: Eye- movements and ERP analysis , 2006 .

[52]  D. Barr,et al.  Perspective taking and the coordination of meaning in language use , 2006 .

[53]  G. Altmann,et al.  The real-time mediation of visual attention by language and world knowledge: Linking anticipatory (and other) eye movements to linguistic processing , 2007 .

[54]  James S. Magnuson,et al.  The Dynamics of Lexical Competition During Spoken Word Recognition , 2007, Cogn. Sci..

[55]  Christoph Scheepers,et al.  Priming ditransitive structures in comprehension , 2007, Cognitive Psychology.

[56]  So how do you feel about this? An ERP study on opinion poll comprehension , 2007 .

[57]  Peter Hagoort,et al.  The Neural Integration of Speaker and Message , 2008, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[58]  Heather J. Ferguson,et al.  Anomalies in real and counterfactual worlds : An eye-movement investigation , 2008 .

[59]  Ruth Filik,et al.  Contextual override of pragmatic anomalies: Evidence from eye movements , 2008, Cognition.

[60]  Mante S. Nieuwland,et al.  When the Truth Is Not Too Hard to Handle , 2008, Psychological science.

[61]  Van Berkum,et al.  Understanding Sentences in Context What Brain Waves Can Tell Us , 2008 .

[62]  Christoph Scheepers,et al.  On-line Investigations of Theory of Mind Reasoning , 2008 .

[63]  Mirella Lapata,et al.  Evidence for serial coercion: A time course analysis using the visual-world paradigm , 2008, Cognitive Psychology.

[64]  Cognitive Processes in Counterfactual Thinking , 2008 .

[65]  Hartmut Leuthold,et al.  Eye-movements and ERPs reveal the time course of processing negation and remitting counterfactual worlds , 2008, Brain Research.

[66]  Sarah Brown-Schmidt,et al.  Addressees distinguish shared from private information when interpreting questions during interactive conversation , 2008, Cognition.

[67]  G. Altmann,et al.  Discourse-mediation of the mapping between language and the visual world: Eye movements and mental representation , 2009, Cognition.

[68]  C. A. Weaver,et al.  Psychology of Reading , 2012 .

[69]  Stephanie M. Stalinski,et al.  Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition , 2012 .