TY - JOUR
T1 - Prediction involves two stages
T2 - Evidence from visual-world eye-tracking
AU - Corps, Ruth
AU - Brooke, Charlotte
AU - Pickering, Martin J.
N1 - Funding Information:
Ruth Corps was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council [grant number ES/J500136/1 ] and a Leverhulme Research Project Grant [ RPG-2018-259 ] awarded to Martin Pickering. We thank Kate Corps and Nigel Corps for patiently recording the stimuli audio. We also thank Aine Ito for suggesting the bootstrapping analysis, Kate Stone for suggesting how to calculate differences between groups, and Dale Barr for reading the manuscript and providing advice on analyses.
Funding Information:
Ruth Corps was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council [grant number ES/J500136/1] and a Leverhulme Research Project Grant [RPG-2018-259] awarded to Martin Pickering. We thank Kate Corps and Nigel Corps for patiently recording the stimuli audio. We also thank Aine Ito for suggesting the bootstrapping analysis, Kate Stone for suggesting how to calculate differences between groups, and Dale Barr for reading the manuscript and providing advice on analyses.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2022/2
Y1 - 2022/2
N2 - Comprehenders often predict what they are going to hear. But do they make the best predictions possible? We addressed this question in three visual-world eye-tracking experiments by asking when comprehenders consider perspective. Male and female participants listened to male and female speakers producing sentences (e.g., I would like to wear the nice…) about stereotypically masculine (target: tie; distractor: drill) and feminine (target: dress, distractor: hairdryer) objects. In all three experiments, participants rapidly predicted semantic associates of the verb. But participants also predicted consistently – that is, consistent with their beliefs about what the speaker would ultimately say. They predicted consistently from the speaker’s perspective in Experiment 1, their own perspective in Experiment 2, and the character’s perspective in Experiment 3. This consistent effect occurred later than the associative effect. We conclude that comprehenders consider perspective when predicting, but not from the earliest moments of prediction, consistent with a two-stage account.
AB - Comprehenders often predict what they are going to hear. But do they make the best predictions possible? We addressed this question in three visual-world eye-tracking experiments by asking when comprehenders consider perspective. Male and female participants listened to male and female speakers producing sentences (e.g., I would like to wear the nice…) about stereotypically masculine (target: tie; distractor: drill) and feminine (target: dress, distractor: hairdryer) objects. In all three experiments, participants rapidly predicted semantic associates of the verb. But participants also predicted consistently – that is, consistent with their beliefs about what the speaker would ultimately say. They predicted consistently from the speaker’s perspective in Experiment 1, their own perspective in Experiment 2, and the character’s perspective in Experiment 3. This consistent effect occurred later than the associative effect. We conclude that comprehenders consider perspective when predicting, but not from the earliest moments of prediction, consistent with a two-stage account.
KW - prediction
KW - perspective-taking
KW - gender-stereotyping
KW - visual world-paradigm
KW - language comprehension
U2 - 10.1016/j.jml.2021.104298
DO - 10.1016/j.jml.2021.104298
M3 - Article
SN - 0749-596X
VL - 122
JO - Journal of Memory and Language
JF - Journal of Memory and Language
M1 - 104298
ER -