Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T13:32:52.600Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preparing to be punched: Prediction may not always require inference of intentions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2013

Helene Kreysa
Helene Kreysa*
Affiliation:
Department for General Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, 07743 Jena, Germany. helene.kreysa@uni-jena.dehttp://www2.uni-jena.de/svw/allgpsy/team/kreysa-h.htm
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pickering & Garrod's (P&G's) framework assumes an efference copy based on the interlocutor's intentions. Yet, elaborate attribution of intentions may not always be necessary for online prediction. Instead, contextual cues such as speaker gaze can provide similar information with a lower demand on processing resources.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , August 2013 , pp. 362 - 363
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Altmann, G. T. M. (2011) The mediation of eye movements by spoken language. In The Oxford handbook of eye movements, ed. Liversedge, S. P., Gilchrist, I. D. & Everling, S., pp. 979–1003. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Altmann, G. T. M. & Kamide, Y. (1999) Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition 73(3):247–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emery, N. J. (2000) The eyes have it: The neuroethology, function and evolution of social gaze. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 24:581–604.Google Scholar
Grant, E. R. & Spivey, M. J. (2003) Eye movements and problem solving: Guiding attention guides thought. Psychological Science 14:462–66.Google Scholar
Griffin, Z. M. & Bock, K. (2000) What the eyes say about speaking. Psychological Science 11:274–79.Google Scholar
Hanna, J. E. & Brennan, S. E. (2007) Speakers' eye gaze disambiguates referring expressions early during face-to-face conversation. Journal of Memory and Language 57:596–615.Google Scholar
Huettig, F., Rommers, J. & Meyer, A. S. (2011) Using the visual world paradigm to study language processing: A review and critical evaluation. Acta Psychologica 137:151–71.Google Scholar
Kamide, Y., Altmann, G. T. M. & Haywood, S. L. (2003) Prediction and thematic information in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 49:133–56.Google Scholar
Knoblich, G., Öllinger, M. & Spivey, M. J. (2005) Tracking the eyes to obtain insight into insight problem solving. In: Cognitive processes in eye guidance, ed. Underwood, G., pp. 355–75. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Knoeferle, P. & Crocker, M. W. (2006) The coordinated interplay of scene, utterance, and world knowledge: Evidence from eye tracking. Cognitive Science 30:481–529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knoeferle, P. & Kreysa, H. (2012) Can speaker gaze modulate syntactic structuring and thematic role assignment during spoken sentence comprehension? Frontiers in Psychology 3:538.Google Scholar
Langton, S. R. H., Watt, R. J. & Bruce, V. (2000) Do the eyes have it? Cues to the direction of social attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4:50–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2006) On the human “interaction engine.” In: Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction, ed. Enfield, N. J. & Levinson, S. C. (Cur.), pp. 39–69. Berg.Google Scholar
Meyer, A. S., Sleiderink, A. M. & Levelt, W. J. M. (1998) Viewing and naming objects: Eye movements during noun phrase production. Cognition 66:B25–33.Google Scholar
Nappa, R., Wessel, A., McEldoon, K. L., Gleitman, L. R. & Trueswell, J. C. (2009) Use of speaker's gaze and syntax in verb learning. Language Learning and Development 5:203–34.Google Scholar
Richardson, D. C. & Dale, R. (2005) Looking to understand: The coupling between speakers' and listeners' eye movements and its relationship to discourse comprehension. Cognitive Science 29:1045–60.Google Scholar
Richardson, D. C., Dale, R. & Kirkham, N. Z. (2007) The art of conversation is coordination. Psychological Science 18:407–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shintel, H. & Keysar, B. (2009) Less is more: A minimalist account of joint action in communication. Topics in Cognitive Science 1:260–73.Google Scholar
Staudte, M. & Crocker, M. W. (2011) Investigating joint attention mechanisms through spoken human-robot interaction. Cognition 120:268–91.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T. & Moll, H. (2005) Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28:675–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Berkum, J. J. A., van den Brink, D., Tesink, C. M. J. Y., Kos, M. & Hagoort, P. (2008) The neural integration of speaker and message. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 20:580–91.Google Scholar
Wolpert, D. M., Doya, K. & Kawato, M. (2003) A unifying computational framework for motor control and social interaction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 358(1431):593–602. DOI:10.1098/rstb.2002.1238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xu, S., Zhang, S. & Geng, H. (2011) Gaze-induced joint attention persists under high perceptual load and does not depend on awareness. Vision Research 51:2048–56.Google Scholar