Literature DB >> 35028824

Pupil Dilation Response to Prosody and Syntax During Auditory Sentence Processing.

Özgür Aydın1,2,3, İpek Pınar Uzun4,5.   

Abstract

Pupil dilation response has been shown to reflect different levels of sentence processing during prosodic and syntactic processing in language comprehension. Our pupillometry experiment aimed to investigate whether pupil diameter was sensitive to the auditory sentence processing involved in comprehending congruent and incongruent statements. Twenty-one participants were presented with 300 auditory stimuli consisting of syntactically and/or prosodically congruent and incongruent sentences in Turkish. The pupillary response results were significant only for syntactically incongruent sentences and for sentences that were both syntactically and prosodically incongruent. This indicates that prosody had no significant effect on its own. Based on the hypothesis that prosodic and syntactic processing require cognitive sensitivity for auditory sentence comprehension, we expected an increase in pupil diameter for both processes. However, our findings are consistent with the previous assumptions that pupil size increases during syntactic manipulation, but our findings showed that prosodic processing does not increase pupil size, contrary to previous studies.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Auditory stimuli; Focus; Post-verbal position; Prosody; Pupillometry; Syntax

Year:  2022        PMID: 35028824     DOI: 10.1007/s10936-021-09830-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res        ISSN: 0090-6905


  20 in total

Review 1.  Decision making, the P3, and the locus coeruleus-norepinephrine system.

Authors:  Sander Nieuwenhuis; Gary Aston-Jones; Jonathan D Cohen
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 17.737

2.  Processing consequences of superfluous and missing prosodic breaks in auditory sentence comprehension.

Authors:  Sara Bögels; Herbert Schriefers; Wietske Vonk; Dorothee J Chwilla; Roel Kerkhofs
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2013-09-11       Impact factor: 3.139

3.  Pupillary responses index cognitive resource limitations.

Authors:  E Granholm; R F Asarnow; A J Sarkin; K L Dykes
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 4.016

Review 4.  Aligning grammatical theories and language processing models.

Authors:  Shevaun Lewis; Colin Phillips
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  2015-02

5.  Acoustical characteristics of sentential focus: narrow vs. broad and single vs. dual focus environments.

Authors:  S J Eady; W E Cooper; G V Klouda; P R Mueller; D W Lotts
Journal:  Lang Speech       Date:  1986 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 1.500

6.  The use of pupillometry in the study of on-line verbal processing: evidence for depths of processing.

Authors:  Y Ben-Nun
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  1986-05       Impact factor: 2.381

7.  The intensity dimension of thought: pupillometric indices of sentence processing.

Authors:  M A Just; P A Carpenter
Journal:  Can J Exp Psychol       Date:  1993-06

8.  Pupillometry: A Window to the Preconscious?

Authors:  Bruno Laeng; Sylvain Sirois; Gustaf Gredebäck
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2012-01-05

9.  Production and Perception of Tone 3 Focus in Mandarin Chinese.

Authors:  Yong-Cheol Lee; Ting Wang; Mark Liberman
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2016-07-26

10.  Safe and sensible preprocessing and baseline correction of pupil-size data.

Authors:  Sebastiaan Mathôt; Jasper Fabius; Elle Van Heusden; Stefan Van der Stigchel
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2018-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.