When describing visual scenes, speakers typically gaze at objects while preparing their names. In a study of the relation between eye movements and speech, a corpus of self-corrected speech errors was analyzed. If errors result from rushed word preparation, insufficient visual information, or failure to check prepared names against objects, speakers should spend less time gazing at referents before uttering errors than before uttering correct names. Counter to predictions, gazes to referents before errors (e.g., gazes to an axe before saying “ham-” [hammer]) highly resembled gazes to referents before correct names (e.g., gazes to an axe before saying “axe”). However, speakers gazed at referents for more time after initiating erroneous compared with correct names, apparently while they prepared corrections. Assuming that gaze nonetheless reflects word preparation, errors were not associated with insufficient preparation. Nor were errors systematically associated with decreased inspection of objects. Like gesture, gaze may accurately reflect a speaker's intentions even when the accompanying speech does not.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaldwinD.A. (1993). Early referential understanding: Infants' ability to recognize referential acts for what they are. Developmental Psychology, 29, 832–843.10.1037//0012-1649.29.5.832
2.
BlackmerE.R.MittonJ.L. (1991). Theories of monitoring and the timing of repairs in spontaneous speech. Cognition, 39, 173–194.
3.
BloemI.La HeijW. (2003). Semantic facilitation and semantic interference in word translation: Implications for models of lexical access in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 468–488.
4.
BockK.IrwinD.E.DavidsonD.J.LeveltW.J.M. (2003). Minding the clock. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 653–685.
5.
BrédartS. (1991). Word interruption in self-repairing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 123–138.
6.
CampanaE.BaldridgeJ.DowdingJ.HockeyB.A.RemingtonR.W.StoneL.S. (2001, November). Using eye movements to determine reference in a spoken dialogue system. Poster presented at Workshop on Perceptive User Interfaces, Orlando, FL.
7.
ClarkH.H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 335–359.
8.
DamianM.F.BowersJ.S. (2003). Locus of semantic interference in picture-word interference tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 111–117.
9.
DeeseJ. (1984). Thought into speech: The psychology of a language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
10.
DellG.S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321.10.1037//0033-295X.93.3.283
11.
DellG.S. (1995). Speaking and misspeaking. InGleitmanL.R.LibermanM.(Eds.), An invitation to cognitive science: Vol. 1. Language (2nd ed., pp.183–208). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12.
ExlineR.V.FehrB.J. (1978). Applications of semiosis to the study of visual interaction. InSeigmanA.W.FeldsteinS.(Eds.), Nonverbal behavior and communication (pp.117–157). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
GlenbergA.M.SchroederJ.L.RobertsonD.A. (1998). Averting the gaze disengages the environment and facilitates remembering. Memory & Cognition, 26, 651–658.
15.
Goldin-MeadowS.AlibaliM.W.ChurchR.B. (1993). Transitions in concept acquisition: Using the hand to read the mind. Psychological Review, 100, 279–297.10.1037//0033-295X.100.2.279
16.
GriffinZ.M. (2001). Gaze durations during speech reflect word selection and phonological encoding. Cognition, 82, B1–B14.
17.
GriffinZ.M. (2003a). A reversed word length effect in coordinating the preparation and articulation of words in speaking. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 603–609.
18.
GriffinZ.M. (2003b, March). Speaking sooner or later: Availability, word length, and fluency. Paper presented at the 16th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Cambridge, MA.
19.
GriffinZ.M. (2004). Why look? Reasons for eye movements related to language production. InHendersonJ.M.FerreiraF.(Eds.), The interface of language, vision, and action: Eye movements and the visual world (pp.213–247). New York: Psychology Press.
20.
GriffinZ.M.BockK. (2000). What the eyes say about speaking. Psychological Science, 11, 274–279.10.1111/1467-9280.00255
21.
GriffinZ.M.SpielerD.H. (2004, April). Sentence complexity in event descriptions of younger and older speakers. Poster presented at the 10th Cognitive Aging Conference, Atlanta, GA.
22.
HarleyT.A. (1990). Environmental contamination of normal speech. Applied Psycholinguistics, 11, 45–72.
23.
HartsuikerR.J.KolkH.H.J. (2001). Error monitoring in speech production: A computational test of the perceptual loop theory. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 113–157.10.1006/cogp.2000.0744
24.
HumphreysG.W.FordeE.M.E. (2001). Hierarchies, similarity, and interactivity in object recognition: “Category-specific” neuropsychological deficits. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 24, 453–509.
25.
HumphreysG.W.PriceC.J.RiddochM.J. (2000). On the naming of objects: Evidence from cognitive neuroscience. InWheeldonL.(Ed.), Aspects of language production (pp.143–163). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
26.
HumphreysG.W.RiddochM.J.PriceC.J. (1997). Top-down processes in object identification: Evidence from experimental psychology, neuropsychology and functional anatomy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Biological Sciences, 352, 1275–1282.10.1098/rstb.1997.0110
27.
LeveltW.J.M. (1983). Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 14, 41–104.
28.
MacKayD.G. (1982). The problems of flexibility, fluency, and speed-accuracy trade-off in skilled behavior. Psychological Review, 89, 483–506.10.1037//0033-295X.89.5.483
29.
McNeillD. (1985). So you think gestures are nonverbal?Psychological Review, 92, 350–371.10.1037//0033-295X.92.3.350
30.
MeyerA.S.LethausF. (2004). The use of eye tracking in studies of sentence generation. InHendersonJ.M.FerreiraF.(Eds.), The interface of language, vision, and action: Eye movements and the visual world (pp.191–211). New York: Psychology Press.
31.
MeyerA.S.SleiderinkA.LeveltW.J.M. (1998). Viewing and naming objects: Eye movements during noun phrase production. Cognition, 66, B25–B33.
32.
MeyerA.S.Van Der MeulenF.F. (2000). Phonological priming effects on speech onset latencies and viewing times in object naming. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 314–319.
33.
MotleyM.T.CamdenC.T.BaarsB.J. (1982). Covert formulation and editing of anomalies in speech production: Evidence from experimentally elicited slips of the tongue. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 578–594.
34.
OomenC.C.E.PostmaA. (2001a). Effects of divided attention on the production of filled pauses and repetitions. Journal of Speech, Language, & Hearing Research, 44, 997–1004.
35.
OomenC.C.E.PostmaA. (2001b). Effects of time pressure on mechanisms of speech production and self-monitoring. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 163–184.10.1023/A:1010377828778
36.
RoelofsA. (1992). A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition, 42, 107–142.
37.
SpielerD.H.GriffinZ.M. (in press). The influence of age on the time course of word preparation in multiword utterances. Language and Cognitive Processes.
38.
Van Der MeulenF.F. (2001). Moving eyes and naming objects. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
39.
Van Der MeulenF.F. (2003, August). Stability of speech-to-gaze alignment in multiple object naming: Beautiful or boring? Paper presented at the 12th Annual European Conference on Eye Movements, Dundee, Scotland.
40.
Van Der MeulenF.F.MeyerA.S.LeveltW.J.M. (2001). Eye movements during the production of nouns and pronouns. Memory & Cognition, 29, 512–521.
41.
WagnerK.R. (1985). How much do children say in a day?Journal of Child Language, 12, 475–487.
