Literature DB >> 24014934

What happened (and what didn't): Discourse constraints on encoding of plausible alternatives.

Scott H Fraundorf1, Aaron S Benjamin, Duane G Watson.   

Abstract

Three experiments investigated how font emphasis influences reading and remembering discourse. Although past work suggests that contrastive pitch contours benefit memory by promoting encoding of salient alternatives, it is unclear both whether this effect generalizes to other forms of linguistic prominence and how the set of alternatives is constrained. Participants read discourses in which some true propositions had salient alternatives (e.g., British scientists found the endangered monkey when the discourse also mentioned French scientists) and completed a recognition memory test. In Experiments 1 and 2, font emphasis in the initial presentation increased participants' ability to later reject false statements about salient alternatives but not about unmentioned items (e.g., Portuguese scientists). In Experiment 3, font emphasis helped reject false statements about plausible alternatives, but not about less plausible alternatives that were nevertheless established in the discourse. These results suggest readers encode a narrow set of only those alternatives plausible in the particular discourse. They also indicate that multiple manipulations of linguistic prominence, not just prosody, can lead to consideration of alternatives.

Entities:  

Keywords:  alternative sets; discourse; fonts; reading; recognition memory

Year:  2013        PMID: 24014934      PMCID: PMC3763865          DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2013.06.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Mem Lang        ISSN: 0749-596X            Impact factor:   3.059


  39 in total

1.  On the effectiveness of self-paced learning.

Authors:  Jonathan G Tullis; Aaron S Benjamin
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2011-02-01       Impact factor: 3.059

2.  Enhancement and suppression effects resulting from information structuring in sentences.

Authors:  Alison J S Sanford; Jessica Price; Anthony J Sanford
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2009-09

3.  Visual noise disrupts conceptual integration in reading.

Authors:  Xuefei Gao; Elizabeth A L Stine-Morrow; Soo Rim Noh; Rhea T Eskew
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2011-02

4.  Effects of foveal processing difficulty on the perceptual span in reading: implications for attention and eye movement control.

Authors:  J M Henderson; F Ferreira
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1990-05       Impact factor: 3.051

5.  The Psychophysics Toolbox.

Authors:  D H Brainard
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  1997

6.  Metacognitive and control strategies in study-time allocation.

Authors:  L K Son; J Metcalfe
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 3.051

7.  Stress Matters: Effects of Anticipated Lexical Stress on Silent Reading.

Authors:  Mara Breen; Charles Clifton
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2010-12-17       Impact factor: 3.059

8.  Labeling of medicines and patient safety: evaluating methods of reducing drug name confusion.

Authors:  Ruth Filik; Kevin Purdy; Alastair Gale; David Gerrett
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 2.888

9.  Using E-Z Reader to model the effects of higher level language processing on eye movements during reading.

Authors:  Erik D Reichle; Tessa Warren; Kerry McConnell
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2009-02

10.  Remembering words not presented in sentences: how study context changes patterns of false memories.

Authors:  Laura E Matzen; Aaron S Benjamin
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2009-01
View more
  11 in total

1.  The Necessity of the Hippocampus for Statistical Learning.

Authors:  Natalie V Covington; Sarah Brown-Schmidt; Melissa C Duff
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2018-01-08       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  Individual differences in syntactic processing: Is there evidence for reader-text interactions?

Authors:  Ariel N James; Scott H Fraundorf; Eun-Kyung Lee; Duane G Watson
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2018-06-27       Impact factor: 3.059

3.  The influences of valence and arousal on judgments of learning and on recall.

Authors:  Kathleen L Hourihan; Scott H Fraundorf; Aaron S Benjamin
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2017-01

4.  Effects of contrastive accents on children's discourse comprehension.

Authors:  Eun-Kyung Lee; Jesse Snedeker
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2016-10

5.  Accents, Not Just Prosodic Boundaries, Influence Syntactic Attachment.

Authors:  Katy Carlson; Joseph C Tyler
Journal:  Lang Speech       Date:  2017-07-07       Impact factor: 1.500

6.  Focus Attracts Attachment.

Authors:  Katy Carlson; David Potter
Journal:  Lang Speech       Date:  2021-07-21       Impact factor: 1.835

7.  Eye see what you're saying: Contrastive use of beat gesture and pitch accent affects online interpretation of spoken discourse.

Authors:  Laura M Morett; Scott H Fraundorf; James C McPartland
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2021-02-04       Impact factor: 3.140

8.  The neurocognitive signature of focus alternatives.

Authors:  Katharina Spalek; Yulia Oganian
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2019-05-30       Impact factor: 2.381

9.  #foodie: Implications of interacting with social media for memory.

Authors:  Jordan Zimmerman; Sarah Brown-Schmidt
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2020-04-16

10.  Contrastive intonation effects on word recall for information-structural alternatives across the sexes.

Authors:  Xaver Koch; Katharina Spalek
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2021-05-24
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.