Expectations on Hierarchical Scales of Discourse: Multifractality Predicts Both Short- and Long-Range Effects of Violating Gender Expectations in Text Reading

Discourse Processes

Volumn 55, Issue 1, 2018, Pages 12-30

  Booth, Chase R ^a   Brown, Hannah L ^a   Eason, Elizabeth G ^a   Wallot, Sebastian ^b,c   Kelty Stephen, Damian G ^a  

^a GRINNELL COLLEGE   (United States)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR EMPIRICAL AESTHETICS   (Germany)

^c AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84981505044     PISSN: 0163853X     EISSN: 15326950     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0163853X.2016.1197811     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Anderson, J. R., & Schooler, L. J., (1991). Reflections of the environment in memory. Psychological Science, 2, 396–408.
2. Berent, I., & Van Orden, G. C., (2000). Homophone dominance modulates the phonemic-masking effect. Scientific Studies of Reading, 4, 133–167.
3. Blanchard, H. E., & Iran-Nejad, A., (1987). Comprehension processes and eye movement patterns in the reading of surprise-ending stories. Discourse Processes, 10, 127–138.
4. Chater, N., & Brown, G. D. A., (2008). From universal laws of cognition to specific cognitive models. Cognitive Science, 32, 36–67.
5. Chhabra, A. B., & Jensen, R. V., (1989). Direct determination of the f(α) singularity spectrum. Physics Review Letters, 62, 1327–1330.
6. Dixon, J. A., Holden, J. G., Mirman, D., & Stephen, D. G., (2012). Multifractal dynamics in the emergence of cognitive structure. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4, 51–62.
7. Duffy, S. A., & Keir, J. A., (2004). Violating stereotypes: Eye movements and comprehension processes when text conflicts with world knowledge. Memory & Cognition, 32, 551–559.
8. Gilden, D. L., Thornton, T., & Mallon, M. W., (1995). 1/f noise in human cognition. Science, 267, 1837–1839.
9. Gottlieb, G., (2007). On the epigenetic evolution of species-specific perception: The developmental manifold concept. Cognitive Development, 17, 1287–1300.
10. Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S., (2011). Computational analyses of multilevel discourse comprehension. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 371–398.
11. Granger, C. W. J., & Joyeux, R., (1980). An introduction to long-memory time series modeling and fractional differencing. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 1, 15–29.
12. Hoeken, H., & van Vliet, M., (2000). Suspense, curiosity, and surprise: How discourse structure influences the affective and cognitive processing of a story. Poetics, 27, 277–286.
13. Ihlen, E. A. F., & Vereijken, B., (2010). Interaction-dominant dynamics in human cognition: Beyond 1/fα fluctuation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139, 436–463.
14. Jensen, H. J., (1998). Self-organised criticality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15. Kaiser, E., & Trueswell, J. C., (2004). The role of discourse context in the processing of a flexible word-order language. Cognition, 94, 113–147.
16. Kelty-Stephen, D. G., & Dixon, J. A., (2014). Interwoven fluctuations during intermodal perception: Fractality in head sway supports the use of visual feedback in haptic perceptual judgments by manual wielding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 40, 2289–2309.
17. Kelty-Stephen, D. G., & Mirman, D., (2013). Gaze fluctuations are not additively decomposable: Reply to Bogartz and Staub. Cognition, 126, 128–134.
18. Kliegl, R., Nuthmann, A., & Engbert, R., (2006). Tracking the mind during reading: the influence of past, present, and future words on fixation durations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 12–35.
19. Mandelbrot, B. B., (1983). The fractal geometry of nature. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
20. Mandic, D. P., Chen, M., Gautama, T., Van Hulle, M. M., & Constantinides, A., (2008). On the characterization of the deterministic/stochastic and linear/nonlinear nature of the time series. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 464, 1141–1160.
21. McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. P., (2009). Towards a comprehensive model of comprehension. In B., Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 297–384). New York, NY: Academic.
22. Molenaar, P. C. M., (2008). On the implications of the classical ergodic theorems: Analysis of developmental processes has to focus on intra-individual variation. Developmental Psychobiology, 50, 60–69.
23. Rhodes, T., Kello, C. T., & Kerster, B., (2011). Distributional and temporal properties of eye movement trajectories in scene perception. In L., Carlson, C., Hölscher, & T., Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 178–183). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
24. Rossi, S., Jürgenson, I. B., Hanulikova, A., Telkemeyer, S., Wartenburger, I., & Obrig, H., (2011). Implicit processing of phonotactic cues: Evidence from electrophysiological and vascular responses. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 1752–1764.
25. Schotter, E. R., Lee, M., Reiderman, M., & Rayner, K., (2015). The effect of contextual constraint on parafoveal processing in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 83, 118–139.
26. Schreiber, T., & Schmitz, A., (1996). Improved surrogate data for nonlinearity tests. Physics Review Letters, 77, 635–638.
27. Simon, H. A., (1969). Sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28. Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B., (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
29. Smith, N. J., & Levy, R., (2013). The effect of word predictability on reading time is logarithmic. Cognition, 128, 302–319.
30. Stephen, D. G., Anastas, J. R., & Dixon, J. A., (2012). Scaling in executive control reflects multiplicative multifractal casade dynamics. Frontiers in Physiology, 3, 102.
31. Stephen, D. G., Boncoddo, R. A., Magnuson, J. S., & Dixon, J. A., (2009). The dynamics of insight: Mathematical discovery as a phase transition. Memory & Cognition, 37, 1132–1149.
32. Stone, G. O., Vanhoy, M. D., & Van Orden, G., (1997). Perception is a two-way street: Feedforward and feedback phonology in visual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 337–359.
33. Teng, D., Wallot, S., & Kelty-Stephen, D. G., (2016). Single-word recognition need not depend on single-word features: Narrative coherence counteracts effects of single-word features that lexical decision emphasizes. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. Advanced online publication. doi: 10.1007/s10936-016-9416-4.
34. Turing, A. M., (1952). The chemical basis of morphogenesis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London, B237, 37–72.
35. Tylén, K., Christensen, P., Roepstorff, A., Lund, T., Østergaard, S., & Donald, M., (2015). Brains striving for coherence: Long-term cumulative plot formation in the default mode network. NeuroImage, 121, 106–114.
36. Van Orden, G., & Kloos, H., (2005). The question of phonology and reading. In M. J., Snowling & C., Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 61–78). Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell.
37. Velan, H., & Frost, R., (2007). Cambridge University versus Hebrew University: The impact of letter transposition on reading English and Hebrew. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 913–918.
38. Wallot, S., Hollis, G., & van Rooij, M., (2013). Connected text reading and differences in text reading fluency in adult readers. PLoS ONE, 8, e71914.
39. Wallot, S., O'Brien, B., Coey, C. A., & Kelty-Stephen, D., (2015). Power-law fluctuations in eye movements predict text comprehension during connected text reading. In D. C., Noelle, R., Dale, A. S., Warlaumont, J., Yoshimi, T., Matlock, C. D., Jennings, & P. P., Maglio (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2583–2588). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
40. Wallot, S., O'Brien, B. A., Haussmann, A., Kloos, H., & Lyby, M. S., (2014). The role of reading time complexity and reading speed in text comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 40, 1745–1765.
41. Wilkinson, S. C., Reader, W., & Payne, S. J., (2012). Adaptive browsing: Sensitivity to time pressure and task difficulty. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 70, 14–25.
42. Zwaan, R. A., Magliano, J. P., & Graesser, A. C., (1995). Dimensions of situation model construction in narrative comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 386–397.