Research has shown that suprasegmental cues in conjunction with visual context can lead to anticipatory (or predictive) eye movements. However, the impact of speech rate on anticipatory eye movements has received little empirical attention. The purpose of the current study was twofold. From a methodological perspective, we tested the impact of speech rate on anticipatory eye movements by systemically varying speech rate (3.5, 4.5, 5.5, and 6.0 syllables per second) in the processing of filler-gap dependencies. From a theoretical perspective, we examined two groups thought to show fewer anticipatory eye movements, and thus likely to be more impacted by speech rate. Experiment 1 compared anticipatory eye movements across the lifespan with younger (18–24 years old) and older adults (40–75 years old). Experiment 2 compared L1 speakers of English and L2 speakers of English with an L1 of German. Results showed that all groups made anticipatory eye movements. However, L2 speakers only made anticipatory eye movements at 3.5 syllables per second, older adults at 3.5 and 4.5 syllables per second, and younger adults at speech rates up to 5.5 syllables per second. At the fastest speech rate, all groups showed a marked decrease in anticipatory eye movements. This work highlights (1) the importance of speech rate on anticipatory eye movements, and (2) group-level performance differences in filler-gap prediction.
AllopennaP. D.MagnusonJ. S.TanenhausM. K. (1998). Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 419–439. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2558
2.
AltmannG. T. M.KamideY. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00059-1
3.
AltmannG. T. M.KamideY. (2004). Now you see it, now you don’t: Mediating the mapping between language and the visual world. In HendersonJ. M.FerreiraF. (Eds.), The interface of language, vision, and action (pp. 347–386). Psychology Press.
BarrD. J. (2008). Analyzing “visual world” eye tracking data using multilevel logistic regression. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 457–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.09.002
7.
BarrD. J.LevyR.ScheepersC.TilyH. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
8.
BatesD. M.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. (R Package Version 1.1-18-1). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
9.
BurkeD. M.MackayD. G. (1997). Memory, language, and ageing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 352(1363), 1845–1856. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1997.0170
ClahsenH.FelserC. (2018). Some notes on the shallow structure hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 693–706. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263117000250
12.
CocoM. I.KellerF.MalcomG. L. (2016). The role of visual context and visual memory. Cognitive Science, 40, 1995–2024. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12313
13.
DekydtspotterL.SchwartzB. D.SprouseR. A. (2006). The comparative fallacy in L2 processing research. In O’BrienM. G.SheaC.ArchibaldJ. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th generative approaches to second language acquisition conference (pp. 33–40). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
14.
DickeyM. W.ChoyJ. J.TompsonC. K. (2007). Real-time comprehension of wh-movement in aphasia: Evidence from eyetracking while listening. Brain and Language, 100, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2006.06.004
15.
DickeyM. W.ThompsonC. K. (2009). Automatic processing of wh- and NP-movement in agrammatic aphasia: Evidence from eye tracking. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22, 563–583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2009.06.004
16.
DussiasP. E.ValdésJ. R. K.GuzzardoR. E. T.GerfenC. (2013). When gender and looking go hand in hand: Grammatical gender processing in L2 Spanish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 353–387. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000915
17.
FernandezL. B.HöhleB.BrockJ.NickelsL. (2018). Investigating auditory processing of syntactic gaps with L2 speakers using pupillometry. Second Language Research, 34, 201–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658317722386
18.
FerreiraF.ChantavarinS. (2018). Integration and prediction in language processing: A synthesis of old and new. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27, 443–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418794491
19.
FerreiraF.TanenhausM. K. (2007). Introduction to the special issue on language-vision interactions. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 455–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.08.002
FrazierL. (1987). Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 5, 519–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138988
22.
FrazierL.Flores D’ArcaisG. B. (1989). Filler driven parsing: A study of gap filling in Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(3), 331–344. https://doi.org/0.1016/0749-596X(89)90037-5
GrosjeanF. (2010). Bilingual: Life and reality. Harvard University Press.
26.
GrüterT.Lew-WilliamsC.FernaldA. (2012). Grammatical gender in L2: A production or a real-time processing problem?Second Language Research, 28(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658312437990
27.
GrüterT.RohdeH.SchaferA. J. (2014). The role of discourse-level expectations in non-native speakers’ referential choices. In OrmanW.ValleauM. J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Boston University conference on language development (pp. 179–191). Cascadilla Press.
28.
GrüterT.RohdeH.SchaferA. J. (2017). Coreference and discourse coherence in L2: The roles of grammatical aspect and referential form. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7(2), 199–229. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.15011.gru
29.
HendersonJ.FerreiraF. (Eds.). (2004). The interface of language, vision, and action: Eye movements and the visual world. Psychology Press.
30.
HertrichI.DietrichS.AckermannH. (2013). How can audiovisual pathways enhance the temporal resolution of time-compressed speech in blind subjects?Frontiers in Psychology, 4, e530. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00530
HoppH. (2013). Grammatical gender in adult L2 acquisition: Relations between lexical and syntactic variability. Second Language Research, 29, 33–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658312461803
33.
HothornT.BretzF.WestfallP. (2008). Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometrical Journal, 50, 346–363.
HuettigF.GuerraE. (2019). Effects of speech rate, preview time of visual context, and participant instructions reveal strong limits on prediction in language processing. Brain Research, 1706, 196–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2018.11.013
36.
HuettigF.ManiN. (2016). Is prediction necessary to understand language? Probably not. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1072223
37.
HuettigF.RommersJ.MeyerA. S. (2011). Using the visual world paradigm to study language processing: A review and critical evaluation. Acta Psychologica, 137, 151–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.11.003
38.
KaanE. (2014). Predictive sentence processing in L2 and L1 what is different?Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4, 267–282. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.4.2.05kaa
KnoeferleP.CrockerM. W.ScheepersC.PickeringM. J. (2005). The influence of the immediate visual context on incremental thematic role-assignment: Evidence from eye-movements in depicted events. Cognition, 95, 95–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.03.002
41.
KuperbergG. R.JaegerT. F. (2016). What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension?Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(1), 32–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1102299
42.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82, 1–26. (R Package Version 3.0-1). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
43.
MagnusonJ. S.DixonJ. A.TanenhausM. K.AslinR. N. (2007). The dynamics of lexical competition during spoken word recognition. Cognitive Science, 31, 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210709336987
44.
MarinisT.RobertsL.FelserC.ClahsenH. (2005). Gaps in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 53–78. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310505003
45.
MunroM. J.DerwingT. M. (2001). Modeling perceptions of the accentedness and comprehensibility of L2 speech the role of speaking rate. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 451–468.
46.
Pichora-FullerM. K. (2008). Use of supportive context by younger and older adult listeners: Balancing bottom-up and top-down information processing. International Journal of Audiology, 47, S72–S82. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992020802307404
PliatsikasC.MarinisT. (2013). Processing empty categories in second language: When naturalistic exposure fills the (intermediate) gap. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672891200017X
49.
RaynerK.ReichleE. D.StroudM. J.WilliamsC. C.PollatsekA. (2006). The effect of word frequency, word predictability, and font difficulty on the eye movements of young and older readers. Psychology and Aging, 21, 448–465. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.21.3.448
50.
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
51.
RosselliM.ArdilaA.MatuteE.Vélez-UribeI. (2014). Language development across the life span: A neuropsychological/neuroimaging perspective. Neuroscience Journal, 2014, 585237. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/585237
52.
SalthouseT. A. (2010). Selective review of cognitive aging. Journal of the International Neuropsychology Society, 16, 754–760. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617710000706
53.
SchikG.MohrS.HofferberthB. (2000). Effects of aging on saccadic eye movements to visual and auditory targets. International Tinnitus Journal, 6, 154–159.
54.
SedivyJ. C.TanenhausM. K.ChambersC. G.CarlsonG. N. (1999). Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual interpretation. Cognition, 71, 109–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00025-6
55.
ShaftoM. A.TylerL. K. (2014). Language in the aging brain: The network dynamics of cognitive decline and preservation. Science, 346, 583–586. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1254404
56.
StaubA. (2015). The effect of lexical predictability on eye movements in reading: Critical review and theoretical interpretation. Language & Linguistics Compass, 9, 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12151
SussmanR. S.SedivyJ. C. (2003). The time course of processing syntactic dependencies: Evidence from eye movements. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 143–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960143000498
59.
TanenhausM. K.Spivey-KnowltonM. J.EberhardK. M.SedivyJ. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 1632–1634. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7777863
60.
WarringtonK. L.WhiteS. J.PatersonK. B. (2018). Ageing and the misperception of words: Evidence from eye movements during reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1251471
61.
WilshireC. (1999). The “tongue twister” paradigm as a technique for studying phonological encoding. Language and Speech, 42, 57–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309990420010301
62.
WingfieldA.PoonL. W.LombardiL.LoweD. (1985). Speed of processing in normal aging: Effects of speech rate, linguistic structure, and processing time. Journal of Gerontology, 40, 579–585. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/40.5.579
63.
ZurifE.SwinneyD.PratherP.WingfieldA.BrownwellH. (1995). The allocation of memory resources during sentence comprehension: Evidence from the elderly. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02145354
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
