Suppr超能文献

发生了什么(以及未发生什么):话语对似是而非替代方案编码的限制。

What happened (and what didn't): Discourse constraints on encoding of plausible alternatives.

作者信息

Fraundorf Scott H, Benjamin Aaron S, Watson Duane G

机构信息

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

出版信息

J Mem Lang. 2013 Oct 1;69(3):196-227. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2013.06.003.

Abstract

Three experiments investigated how font emphasis influences reading and remembering discourse. Although past work suggests that contrastive pitch contours benefit memory by promoting encoding of salient alternatives, it is unclear both whether this effect generalizes to other forms of linguistic prominence and how the set of alternatives is constrained. Participants read discourses in which some true propositions had salient alternatives (e.g., when the discourse also mentioned ) and completed a recognition memory test. In Experiments 1 and 2, font emphasis in the initial presentation increased participants' ability to later reject false statements about salient alternatives but not about unmentioned items (e.g., ). In Experiment 3, font emphasis helped reject false statements about plausible alternatives, but not about less plausible alternatives that were nevertheless established in the discourse. These results suggest readers encode a narrow set of only those alternatives plausible in the particular discourse. They also indicate that multiple manipulations of linguistic prominence, not just prosody, can lead to consideration of alternatives.

摘要

三项实验研究了字体强调如何影响语篇的阅读和记忆。尽管过去的研究表明,对比性音高轮廓通过促进突出替代项的编码而有益于记忆,但尚不清楚这种效应是否能推广到其他形式的语言突出性,以及替代项的集合是如何受到限制的。参与者阅读一些语篇,其中一些真命题有突出的替代项(例如,当语篇也提到 时),并完成一项识别记忆测试。在实验1和实验2中,初始呈现时的字体强调提高了参与者后来拒绝关于突出替代项的错误陈述的能力,但对于未提及的项目(例如 )则没有提高。在实验3中,字体强调有助于拒绝关于合理替代项的错误陈述,但对于语篇中虽已确立但不太合理的替代项则没有帮助。这些结果表明,读者只编码在特定语篇中合理的一小部分替代项。它们还表明,语言突出性的多种操作,而不仅仅是韵律,会导致对替代项的思考。

相似文献

1
What happened (and what didn't): Discourse constraints on encoding of plausible alternatives.
J Mem Lang. 2013 Oct 1;69(3):196-227. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2013.06.003.
3
Recognition memory reveals just how CONTRASTIVE contrastive accenting really is.
J Mem Lang. 2010 Oct 1;63(3):367-386. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2010.06.004.
4
Priming Effects of Focus in Mandarin Chinese.
Front Psychol. 2019 Aug 30;10:1985. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01985. eCollection 2019.
5
The effects of age on the strategic use of pitch accents in memory for discourse: a processing-resource account.
Psychol Aging. 2012 Mar;27(1):88-98. doi: 10.1037/a0024138. Epub 2011 May 30.
6
Focus Effects on Immediate and Delayed Recognition of Referents in Samoan.
Lang Speech. 2023 Mar;66(1):175-201. doi: 10.1177/00238309221101396. Epub 2022 May 31.
7
Discourse integration guided by the 'question under discussion'.
Cogn Psychol. 2012 Sep;65(2):352-79. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.04.001. Epub 2012 Jun 7.
8
Punctuation, Prosody, and Discourse: Afterthought Vs. Right Dislocation.
Front Psychol. 2015 Dec 1;6:1803. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01803. eCollection 2015.
9
Context-driven expectations about focus alternatives.
Cognition. 2015 Jun;139:28-49. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.02.009. Epub 2015 Mar 19.

引用本文的文献

3
Focus Attracts Attachment.
Lang Speech. 2022 Jun;65(2):491-512. doi: 10.1177/00238309211033321. Epub 2021 Jul 21.
4
Contrastive intonation effects on word recall for information-structural alternatives across the sexes.
Mem Cognit. 2021 Oct;49(7):1312-1333. doi: 10.3758/s13421-021-01174-1. Epub 2021 May 24.
5
Eye see what you're saying: Contrastive use of beat gesture and pitch accent affects online interpretation of spoken discourse.
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2021 Sep;47(9):1494-1526. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000986. Epub 2021 Feb 4.
6
#foodie: Implications of interacting with social media for memory.
Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2020 Apr 16;5(1):16. doi: 10.1186/s41235-020-00216-7.
7
Priming Effects of Focus in Mandarin Chinese.
Front Psychol. 2019 Aug 30;10:1985. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01985. eCollection 2019.
8
The neurocognitive signature of focus alternatives.
Brain Lang. 2019 Jul;194:98-108. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2019.04.007. Epub 2019 May 30.
9
Individual differences in syntactic processing: Is there evidence for reader-text interactions?
J Mem Lang. 2018 Oct;102:155-181. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2018.05.006. Epub 2018 Jun 27.
10
The Necessity of the Hippocampus for Statistical Learning.
J Cogn Neurosci. 2018 May;30(5):680-697. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_01228. Epub 2018 Jan 8.

本文引用的文献

1
Stress Matters: Effects of Anticipated Lexical Stress on Silent Reading.
J Mem Lang. 2011 Feb 1;64(2):153-170. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2010.11.001. Epub 2010 Dec 17.
3
The effects of age on the strategic use of pitch accents in memory for discourse: a processing-resource account.
Psychol Aging. 2012 Mar;27(1):88-98. doi: 10.1037/a0024138. Epub 2011 May 30.
4
Interpreting Pitch Accents in Online Comprehension: H* vs. L+H*.
Cogn Sci. 2008 Oct;32(7):1232-44. doi: 10.1080/03640210802138755.
5
On the effectiveness of self-paced learning.
J Mem Lang. 2011 Feb 1;64(2):109-118. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2010.11.002.
7
Visual noise disrupts conceptual integration in reading.
Psychon Bull Rev. 2011 Feb;18(1):83-8. doi: 10.3758/s13423-010-0014-4.
9
Fortune favors the bold (and the Italicized): effects of disfluency on educational outcomes.
Cognition. 2011 Jan;118(1):111-5. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.09.012. Epub 2010 Oct 30.
10
Effects of syntactic prominence on eye movements during reading.
Mem Cognit. 2010 Sep;38(6):740-52. doi: 10.3758/MC.38.6.740.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验