In the eye of the listener: Pupil dilation elucidates discourse processing

International Journal of Psychophysiology

Volumn 81, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 133-141

  Zellin, Martina ^a,b   Pannekamp, Ann ^a   Toepel, Ulrike ^c   van der Meer, Elke ^a,d  

^a HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE   (Switzerland)

^d Berlin School of Mind and Brain   (Germany)

Author keywords

Discourse; Pragmatic focus; Prosody; Pupil dilation

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; ARTICLE; COGNITION; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LATENT PERIOD; LINGUISTICS; MALE; MYDRIASIS; NORMAL HUMAN; PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY; PUPIL; PUPILLOMETRY;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ATTENTION; COGNITION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS; JUDGMENT; LANGUAGE; MALE; OCULAR PHYSIOLOGICAL PHENOMENA; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; PUPIL; SPEECH; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 80054040277     PISSN: 01678760     EISSN: 18727697     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.05.009     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Alter K., Mleinek I., Rohe T., Umbach C., Steube A. Kontrastprosodie in Sprachproduktion und-perzeption. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte Leipzig 2001, 77.
2. Aston-Jones G., Cohen J.D. An integrative theory of locus coeruleus-norepinephrine function: adaptive gain and optimal performance. Annual Review of Neuroscience 2005, 28:403-450.
3. Bartels C., Kingston J. Salient Pitch Cues in the Perception of Contrastive Focus. Proceedings of the Journal of Semantics Conference on Focus: IBM Working Papers, TR-80.94.006 1994, P. Bosch, R. van der Sandt (Eds.).
4. Beatty J. Task-evoked pupillary responses, processing load, and the structure of processing resources. Psychological Bulletin 1982, 91:276-292.
5. Beatty J., Lucero-Wagoner B. The Pupillary System. Handbook of Psychophysiology 2000, 142-162. Cambridge University Press, New York. 2nd ed. J.T. Cacioppo, L.G. Tassinary, G.G. Berntson (Eds.).
6. Birch S., Clifton C. Focus, accent and argument structure: effects on language comprehension. Language and Speech 1995, 38:365-391.
7. Bock J.K., Mazella J.R. Intonational marking of given and new information: some consequences for comprehension. Memory and Cognition 1983, 11:64-76.
8. Bornkessel I., Schlesewski M., Friederici A.D. Contextual information modulates initial processes of syntactic integration: the role of inter- versus intrasentential predictions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2003, 29:871-882.
9. Briesemeister B.B., Hofmann M.J., Tamm S., Kuchinke L., Braun M., Jacobs A.M. The pseudohomophone effect: evidence for an orthography-phonology-conflict. Neuroscience Letters 2009, 455:124-128.
10. Chafe W. Language and consciousness. Language 1974, 50:111-133.
11. Clark H.H. Using Language 1996, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
12. Cooper W., Eady S., Mueller P. Acoustical aspects of contrastive stress in question-answer contexts. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1985, 77:2142-2155.
13. Couper-Kuhlen E. An Introduction to English Prosody 1984, Niemeyer, Tübingen.
14. Cowles H.W., Kluender R., Kutas M., Polinski M. Violations of information structure: an electrophysiological study of answers to wh-questions. Brain and Language 2007, 102:228-242.
15. Cutler A., Dahan D., van Donselaar W. Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: a literature review. Language and Speech 1997, 40:141-201.
16. Eckstein K., Friederici A.D. Late interaction of syntactic and prosodic processes in sentence comprehension as revealed by ERPs. Cognitive Brain Research 2005, 25(1):130-143.
17. Engelhardt P.E., Ferreira F., Patsenko E.G. Pupillometry reveals processing load during spoken language comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2009, 11:1-7.
18. Féry C. German Intonational Patterns 1993, Niemeyer, Tübingen.
19. Friederici A.D. Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2002, 6(2):78-84.
20. Friederici A.D., Alter K. Lateralization of auditory language functions: a dynamic dual pathway model. Brain and Language 2004, 89(2):267-276.
21. Gernsbacher M.A., Jescheniak J.D. Cataphoric devices in spoken discourse. Cognitive Psychology 1995, 29:24-58.
22. Granholm E., Verney S.P. Pupillary responses and attentional allocation problems on the backward masking task in schizophrenia. International Journal of Psychophysiology 2004, 52:37-52.
23. Grosz B.J., Sidner C.L. Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics 1986, 12:175-204.
24. Hagoort P. The fractionation of spoken language understanding by measuring electrical and magnetic brain signals. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 2008, 363:1055-1069.
25. Halliday M.A.K. Intonation and Grammar in British English 1967, Mouton, The Hague.
26. Heim S., Alter K. Prosodic pitch accents in language comprehension and production: ERP data and acoustic analyses. Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis 2006, 66:55-68.
27. Hoeks B., Levelt W.J.M. Pupillary dilation as a measure of attention: a quantitative system analysis. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 1993, 25(1):16-26.
28. Hoeks J.C., Redeker G., Hendriks P. Fill the gap! Combining pragmatic and prosodic information to make gapping easy. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2009, 38:221-235.
29. Hruska C., Alter K. How Prosody Can Influence Sentence Perception. Information structure: Theoretical and Empirical Aspects 2004, 211-226. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. A. Steube (Ed.).
30. Isel F., Alter K., Friederici A.D. Influence of prosodic information on the processing of split particles: ERP evidence from spoken German. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2005, 17:1-14.
31. Just M.A., Carpenter P.A., Miyake A. Neuroindices of cognitive workload: neuroimaging, pupillometric and event-related potential studies of brain work. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 2003, 4:56-88.
32. Krahmer E., Swerts M. On the alleged existence of contrastive accents. Speech Communication 2001, 34:391-405.
33. Kuchinke L., Vo M.L.H., Hofmann M., Jacobs A.M. Pupillary responses during lexical decisions vary with word frequency but not emotional valence. International Journal of Psychophysiology 2007, 65:132-140.
34. Kuperberg G.R. Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: challenges to syntax. Brain Research 2007, 1146:23-46.
35. Ladd D.R. Intonational Phonology 2008, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 2nd edition.
36. Landgraf S., van der Meer E., Krueger F. Cognitive resource allocation for neural activity underlying mathematical cognition: a multi-method study. ZDM Matematics Education 2010, 42:579-590.
37. Loewenfeld I. The Pupil 1993, Wayne State University Press, Detroit.
38. Magne C., Astésano C., Lacharet-Dujour A., Morel M., Alter K., Besson M. On-line processing of "pop-out" words in spoken French dialogues. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2005, 17:740-756.
39. Mietz A., Toepel U., Ischebeck A., Alter K. Inadequate and infrequent are not alike: ERPs to deviant prosodic patterns in spoken sentence comprehension. Brain and Language 2008, 104:159-169.
40. Nooteboom S.G., Kruyt J.G. Accent, focus distribution and the perceived distribution of given and new information: an experiment. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1987, 104:3080-3098.
41. Nuthmann A., van der Meer E. Time's arrow and pupillary response. Psychophysiology 2005, 42:306-317.
42. Pierrehumbert J., Hirschberg J. The Meaning of Intonation in the Interpretation of Discourse. Intentions in Communication 1990, 271-311. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. P. Cohen, J. Morgan, M. Pollack (Eds.).
43. Piquado T., Isaacowitz D., Wingfield A. Pupillometry as a measure of cognitive effort in younger and older adults. Psychophysiology 2010, 47:560-569.
44. Raisig S., Welke T., Hagendorf H., van der Meer E. Investigating dimensional organization in scripts using the pupillary response. Psychophysiology 2007, 44:864-873.
45. Raisig S., Hagendorf H., van der Meer E. I spy with my little eye: detection of temporal violations in event sequences and the pupillary response. International Journal of Psychophysiology 2010, 76:1-8.
46. Schafer A.J., Speer S.R., Warren P., White S.D. Intonational disambiguation in sentence production and comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2000, 29:169-182.
47. Selkirk E.O. Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure 1984, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
48. Steinhauer K., Alter K., Friederici A.D. Brain potentials indicate immediate use of prosodic cues in natural speech processing. Nature Neuroscience 1999, 2:191-196.
49. Stolterfoht B., Friederici A.D., Alter K., Steube A. Processing focus structure and implicit prosody during reading: differential ERP effects. Cognition 2007, 104:565-590.
50. Toepel U., Pannekamp A., Alter K. Catching the news: processing strategies in listening to dialogs as measured by ERPs. Behavioral and Brain Functions 2007, 3:53.
51. Toepel U., Pannekamp A., van der Meer E. Fishing for Information: The Interpretation of Focus in Dialogs. Brain talk: Discourse with and in the brain 2009, 175-190. Lund University. Lund, Media-Tryck. K. Alter, M. Horne, M. Lindgren, M. Roll, J. von Koss Torkildsen (Eds.).
52. van der Meer E., Beyer R., Horn J., Foth M., Bornemann B., Ries J., Kramer J., Warmuth E., Heekeren H., Wartenburger I. Resource allocation and fluid intelligence: insights from pupillometry. Psychophysiology 2010, 47:158-169.
53. Verney S.P., Granholm E., Marshall S.P. Pupillary responses on the visual backward masking task reflect general cognitive ability. International Journal of Psychophysiology 2004, 52:23-36.
54. Warren P., Grabe E., Nolan F. Prosody, phonology, and parsing in close ambiguities. Language and Cognitive Processes 1995, 10:457-486.
55. Ylinen S., Strelnikov K., Huotilainen M., Näätänen R. Effects of prosodic familiarity on the automatic processing of words in the human brain. International Journal of Psychophysiology 2009, 73:362-368.
56. Zimmer K. Ansätze der psychophysiologischen Indikation von Wissensrepräsentationen: Die Pupillomotorik als sensibler Indikator semantischer Informationsverarbeitungsaktivität. Gedächtnis, Wissen, Wissensnutzung 1984, 137-155. Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin. F. Klix (Ed.).