October 2020
Volume 20, Issue 11
Open Access
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   October 2020
Talking about what we see, again: further evidence for non-anticipatory eye movements in dynamic scenes during sentence comprehension
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Roberto G. de Almeida
    Concordia University, Montreal
  • Caitlyn Antal
    Concordia University, Montreal
  • Julia Di Nardo
    Concordia University, Montreal
  • Footnotes
    Acknowledgements  This work as supported by grants from NSERC and SSHRC
Journal of Vision October 2020, Vol.20, 986. doi:https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.20.11.986
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Roberto G. de Almeida, Caitlyn Antal, Julia Di Nardo; Talking about what we see, again: further evidence for non-anticipatory eye movements in dynamic scenes during sentence comprehension. Journal of Vision 2020;20(11):986. doi: https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.20.11.986.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

We present two experiments involving true scenes (motion pictures of events), manipulating verb class, sentence semantic context, and scene motion context. Experiment 1 constituted a replication of [reference omitted, 2019]. Participants (N=32) were presented with sentences containing either a causative or a perception/psychological (experiencer) verb (e.g., Before making the desert, the cook will crack/examine the eggs that are in the bowl). Scene context varied according to the action performed by the agent (cook), moving towards the target object (eggs), away from it, or remaining neutral. Results were similar to those obtained by our previous study: a main effect of motion and no main effect of verb type. We obtained faster saccades to the target object in the causative sentences than in the experiencer sentences, but only in the towards motion condition. As in our previous study, we did not find anticipatory effects to target objects. In Experiment 2 (N=46), in addition to verb type (causative vs. experiencer) and agent motion (towards vs. neutral) we introduced a sentence context manipulation, with the first clause denoting either a semantically restrictive activity (e.g., In order to make the omelet...) or a non-restrictive one (e.g., After pouring the flour into the bowl,...). We predicted that the stronger context would enhance attention to properties of verbs making the potential referents of their objects more salient, thus driving anticipatory effects found in other studies. We found an effect of motion and semantic context, with restrictive sentences driving faster saccades to target objects. We also found a verb effect with causatives yielding faster saccades than experiencer verbs only in the towards condition, but no anticipatory effects. These results suggest that early linguistic and visual processes are largely independent, interacting at a later, conceptual stage. We propose that the two systems interact using a common propositional code.


This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.