↓ Skip to main content

Incrementality in Planning of Speech During Speaking and Reading Aloud: Evidence from Eye-Tracking

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Incrementality in Planning of Speech During Speaking and Reading Aloud: Evidence from Eye-Tracking
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00033
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lesya Y. Ganushchak, Yiya Chen

Abstract

Speaking is an incremental process where planning and articulation interleave. While incrementality has been studied in reading and online speech production separately, it has not been directly compared within one investigation. This study set out to compare the extent of planning incrementality in online sentence formulation versus reading aloud and how discourse context may constrain the planning scope of utterance preparation differently in these two modes of speech planning. Two eye-tracking experiments are reported: participants either described pictures of transitive events (Experiment 1) or read aloud the written descriptions of those events (Experiment 2). In both experiments, the information status of an object character was manipulated in the discourse preceding each picture or sentence. In the Literal condition, participants heard a story where object character was literally mentioned (e.g., fly). In the No Mention condition, stories did not literally mention nor prime the object character depicted on the picture or written in the sentence. The target response was expected to have the same structure and content in all conditions (The frog catches the fly). During naming, the results showed shorter speech onset latencies in the Literal condition than in the No Mention condition. However, no significant differences in gaze durations were found. In contrast, during reading, there were no significant differences in speech onset latencies but there were significantly longer gaze durations to the target picture/word in the Literal than in the No Mention condition. Our results shot that planning is more incremental during reading than during naming and that discourse context can be helpful during speaker but may hinder during reading aloud. Taken together our results suggest that on-line planning of response is affected by both linguistic and non-linguistic factors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 34 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 23%
Researcher 7 20%
Professor 3 9%
Lecturer 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Other 10 29%
Unknown 3 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Linguistics 13 37%
Psychology 8 23%
Environmental Science 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 5 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 February 2016.
All research outputs
#15,356,841
of 22,844,985 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#18,712
of 29,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#233,262
of 396,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#350
of 477 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,844,985 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,853 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 396,748 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 477 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.