Eye-Movement Suppression in the Visual World Paradigm.

Eye movements in the visual world paradigm are known to depend not only on linguistic input but on such factors as task, pragmatic context, affordances, etc. However, the degree to which eye movements may depend on task rather than on linguistic input is unclear. The present study for the first time tests how task constraints modulate eye movement behavior in the visual world paradigm by probing whether participants could refrain from looking at the referred image. Across two experiments with and without comprehension questions (total N = 159), we found that when participants were instructed to avoid looking at the referred images, the probability of fixating these reduced from 58% to 18% while comprehension scores remained high. Although language-mediated eye movements could not be suppressed fully, the degree of possible decoupling of eye movements from language processing suggests that participants can withdraw at least some looks from the referred images when needed. If they do so to different degrees in different experimental conditions, comparisons between conditions might be compromised. We discuss some cases where participants could adopt different viewing behaviors depending on the experimental condition, and provide some tentative ways to test for such differences.

Does early exposure to spoken and sign language affect reading fluency in deaf and hard-of-hearing adult signers?

Introduction: Early linguistic background, and in particular, access to language, lays the foundation of future reading skills in deaf and hard-of-hearing signers. The current study aims to estimate the impact of two factors - early access to sign and/or spoken language - on reading fluency in deaf and hard-of-hearing adult Russian Sign Language speakers. Methods: In the eye-tracking experiment, 26 deaf and 14 hard-of-hearing native Russian Sign Language speakers read 144 sentences from the Russian Sentence Corpus. Analysis of global eye-movement trajectories (scanpaths) was used to identify clusters of typical reading trajectories. The role of early access to sign and spoken language as well as vocabulary size as predictors of the more fluent reading pattern was tested. Results: Hard-of-hearing signers with early access to sign language read more fluently than those who were exposed to sign language later in life or deaf signers without access to speech sounds. No association between early access to spoken language and reading fluency was found. Discussion: Our results suggest a unique advantage for the hard-of-hearing individuals from having early access to both sign and spoken language and support the existing claims that early exposure to sign language is beneficial not only for deaf but also for hard-of-hearing children.

Do we rely on good-enough processing in reading under auditory and visual noise?

Noise, as part of real-life communication flow, degrades the quality of linguistic input and affects language processing. According to predictions of the noisy-channel and good-enough processing models, noise should make comprehenders rely more on word-level semantics instead of actual syntactic relations. However, empirical evidence supporting this prediction is still lacking. For the first time, we investigated whether auditory (three-talker babble) and visual (short idioms appearing next to a target sentence on the screen) noise would trigger greater reliance on semantics and make readers of Russian sentences process the sentences superficially. Our findings suggest that, although Russian speakers generally relied on semantics in sentence comprehension, neither auditory nor visual noise increased this reliance. The only effect of noise on semantic processing was found in reading speed under auditory noise measured by first fixation duration: only without noise, the semantically implausible sentences were read slower than semantically plausible ones. These results do not support the predictions of the study based on the noisy-channel and good-enough processing models, which is discussed in light of the methodological differences among the studies of noise and their possible limitations.