Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Individual differences in the scope of speech planning: evidence from eye-movements*

  • BENJAMIN SWETS (a1), MATTHEW E. JACOVINA (a2) and RICHARD J. GERRIG (a2)
Abstract

Previous research has demonstrated that the scope of speakers’ planning in language production varies in response to external forces such as time pressure. This susceptibility to external pressures indicates a flexibly incremental production system: speakers plan utterances piece by piece, but external pressures affect the size of the pieces speakers buffer. In the current study, we explore internal constraints on speech planning. Specifically, we examine whether individual differences in working memory predict the scope and efficiency of advance planning. In our task, speakers described picture arrays to partners in a matching game. The arrays sometimes required speakers to note a contrast between a sentence-initial object (e.g., a four-legged cat) and a sentence-final object (e.g., a three-legged cat). Based on prior screening, we selected participants who differed on verbal working memory span. Eye-movement measures revealed that high-span speakers were more likely to gaze at the contrasting pictures prior to articulation than were low-span speakers. As a result, high-span speakers were also more likely to reference the contrast early in speech. We conclude that working memory plays a substantial role in the flexibility of incremental speech planning.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Address for correspondence: Benjamin Swets, Psychology Department, 2224 Au Sable Hall, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI, 49401. tel: 616-331-2169; e-mail: swetsb@gvsu.edu
Footnotes
Hide All
*

We thank Bill Wenzel for his significant contributions to the collection and analysis of data. We also thank two anonymous reviewers. Matthew E. Jacovina is now a Postdoctoral Fellow at the School of Education and Social Policy, and the Department of Psychology at Northwestern University.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
Allum, P. H., & Wheeldon, L. R. (2007). Planning scope in spoken sentence production: the role of grammatical units. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 791810.
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390412.
Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2012). lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. Online: <lme4-author@R-forge.wu-wien.ac.at>.
Bock, J. K., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Language production: grammatical encoding. In Gernsbacher, M. A. (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 945984). San Diego: Academic Press.
Brown-Schmidt, S., & Konopka, A. E. (2008). Little houses and casas pequeñas: message formulation and syntactic form in unscripted speech with speakers of English and Spanish. Cognition, 109, 274280.
Brown-Schmidt, S., & Tanenhaus, M. (2006). Watching the eyes when talking about size: an investigation of message formulation and utterance planning. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 592609.
Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: a methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 769786.
Costa, A., & Caramazza, A. (2002). The production of noun phrases in English and Spanish: implications for the scope of phonological encoding in speech production. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 178198.
Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: a reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87114.
Damian, M. F., & Dumay, N. (2007). Time pressure and phonological advance planning in spoken production. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 195209.
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 19, 450466.
Ferreira, F., & Swets, B. (2002). How incremental is language production? Evidence from the production of utterances requiring the computation of arithmetic sums. Journal of Memory & Language, 46, 5784.
Ferreira, F., & Swets, B. (2005). The production and comprehension of resumptive pronouns in relative clause ‘island’ contexts. In Cutler, A. (Ed.), Twenty-first century psycholinguistics: four cornerstones (pp. 263278). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Ford, M., & Holmes, V. M. (1978). Planning units and syntax in sentence production. Cognition, 6, 3553.
Fuchs, S., Petrone, C., Krivokapic, J., & Hoole, P. (2013). Acoustic and respiratory evidence for utterance planning in German. Journal of Phonetics, 41, 2947.
Garrod, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2007). Automaticity of language production in monologue and dialogue. In Meyer, A. S., Wheeldon, L. R., & Krott, A. (Eds.), Automaticity and control in language processing (pp. 120). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Griffin, Z. M. (2001). Gaze durations during speech reflect word selection and phonological encoding. Cognition, 82, B1B14.
Griffin, Z. M., & Bock, K. (2000). What the eyes say about speaking. Psychological Science, 11, 274279.
Hartsuiker, R. J., & Barkhuysen, P. N. (2006). Language production and working memory: the case of subject−verb agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 181204.
Heitz, R. P., & Engle, R. W. (2007). Focusing the spotlight: individual differences in visual attention control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 217240.
Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., Payne, T. W., & Engle, R. W. (2008). Effects of incentive on working memory capacity: behavioral and pupillometric data. Psychophysiology, 45, 119129.
Horton, W. S., & Spieler, D. H. (2007). Age-related differences in communication and audience design. Psychology and Aging, 22, 281290.
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434446.
Jefferson, G. (1989). Preliminary notes on a possible metric which provides for a ‘standard maximum’ silence of approximately one second in conversation. In Roger, D. & Bull, P. (Eds.), Conversation: an interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 166196). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122149.
Kane, M. J., Conway, A. R. A., Hambrick, D. Z., & Engle, R. W. (2007). Variation in working memory capacity as variation in executive attention and control. In Conway, A. R. A.Jarrold, C.Kane, M. J.Miyake, A., and Towse, J. N. (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp. 2148). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., Tuholski, S. W., Wilhelm, O., Payne, T. W. & Engle, R. W. (2004). The generality of working memory capacity: a latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 189217.
Kellogg, R. T., Oliver, T. & Piolat, A. (2007). Verbal, visual, and spatial working memory in written language production. Acta Psychologica, 124, 382397.
Kempen, G., & Hoenkamp, E. (1987). An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, 11, 201258.
Kemper, S., Herman, R. E., & Lian, C. H. T. (2003). The costs of doing two things at once for young and older adults: talking while walking, finger tapping, and ignoring speech or noise. Psychology and Aging, 18, 181192.
Kemper, S., & Sumner, A. (2001). The structure of verbal abilities in young and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 16, 312322.
Konopka, A. E., & Meyer, A. S. (2010). Looking ahead: variability in planning scope for complex noun phrases − evidence from eye-tracking [Abstract]. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference on Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing [AMLaP 2010]. York: University of York. Online: <http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:532556:5/component/escidoc:532557/amlap_2010_Konopka_abstract.pdf>.
Korvorst, M., Roelofs, A. & Levelt, W. J. M. (2006). Incrementality in naming and reading complex numerals: evidence from eyetracking. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 296311.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: from intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Levelt, W. J. M., & Meyer, A. (2000). Word for word: multiple lexical access in speech production. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 12, 433452.
Lewis, R. L., Vasishth, S. & van Dyke, J. A. (2006). Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 447454.
McElree, B. (2006). Accessing recent events. In Ross, B. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, vol. 3 (pp. 155200). San Diego: Academic Press.
Meyer, A. S. (1996). Lexical access in phrase and sentence production: results from picture−word interference experiments. Journal of Memory & Language, 35, 477496.
Mortensen, L., Meyer, A. S., & Humphreys, G. W. (2008). Speech planning during multiple-object naming: effects of ageing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 12171238.
Petrone, C., Fuchs, S., & Krivokapić, J. (2011). Consequences of working memory differences and phrasal length on pause duration and fundamental frequency. Paper presented at the 9th International Seminar on Speech Production (ISSP), Montréal, Canada. Online: <http://pantheon.yale.edu/∼jk736/petrone_fuchs_krivokapic_ISSP_2011.pdf>.
Power, M. J. (1985). Sentence production and working memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 37A, 367385.
Rossion, B., & Pourtois, G. (2004). Revisiting Snodgrass and Vanderwart’s object pictorial set: the role of surface detail in basic-level object recognition. Perception, 33, 217236.
Salthouse, T. A. (1994). The aging of working memory. Neuropsychology, 8, 535543.
Schriefers, H., & Teruel, E. (1999). Phonological facilitation in the production of two-word utterances. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 11, 1750.
Slevc, L. R. (2007). Saying what’s on your mind: working memory effects on syntactic production. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) University of California, San Diego.
Slevc, L. R. (2011). Saying what’s on your mind: working memory effects on sentence production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 15031514.
Smith, M., & Wheeldon, L. (1999). High level processing scope in spoken sentence production. Cognition, 73, 205246.
Smith, M., & Wheeldon, L. (2001). Syntactic priming in spoken sentence production: an online study. Cognition, 78, 123164.
Swets, B., Desmet, T., Hambrick, D. Z., & Ferreira, F. (2007). The role of working memory in syntactic ambiguity resolution: a psychometric approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 6481.
Swets, B., Jacovina, M. E., & Gerrig, R. J. (2013). Effects of conversational pressures on speech planning. Discourse Processes, 50, 2351.
Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 127154.
Wagner, V., Jescheniak, J. D., & Schriefers, H. (2010). On the flexibility of grammatical advance planning during sentence production: effects of cognitive load on multiple lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 423440.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Language and Cognition
  • ISSN: 1866-9808
  • EISSN: 1866-9859
  • URL: /core/journals/language-and-cognition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 4
Total number of PDF views: 54 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 395 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 19th September 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.