Studying Individual Differences in Language Comprehension: The Challenges of Item-Level Variability and Well-Matched Control Conditions.

Translating experimental tasks that were designed to investigate differences between conditions at the group-level into valid and reliable instruments to measure individual differences in cognitive skills is challenging (Hedge et al., 2018; Rouder et al., 2019; Rouder & Haaf, 2019). For psycholinguists, the additional complexities associated with selecting or constructing language stimuli, and the need for appropriate well-matched baseline conditions make this endeavour particularly complex. In a typical experiment, a process-of-interest (e.g. ambiguity resolution) is targeted by contrasting performance in an experimental condition with performance in a well-matched control condition. In many cases, careful between-condition matching precludes the same participant from encountering all stimulus items. Unfortunately, solutions that work for group-level research (e.g. constructing counterbalanced experiment versions) are inappropriate for individual-differences designs. As a case study, we report an ambiguity resolution experiment that illustrates the steps that researchers can take to address this issue and assess whether their measurement instrument is both valid and reliable. On the basis of our findings, we caution against the widespread approach of using datasets from group-level studies to also answer important questions about individual differences.

Learning about the meanings of ambiguous words: evidence from a word-meaning priming paradigm with short narratives.

Fluent language comprehension requires people to rapidly activate and integrate context-appropriate word meanings. This process is challenging for meanings of ambiguous words that are comparatively lower in frequency (e.g., the "bird" meaning of "crane"). Priming experiments have shown that recent experience makes such subordinate (less frequent) word meanings more readily available at the next encounter. These experiments used lists of unconnected sentences in which each ambiguity was disambiguated locally by neighbouring words. In natural language, however, disambiguation may occur via more distant contextual cues, embedded in longer, connected communicative contexts. In the present experiment, participants (N = 51) listened to 3-sentence narratives that ended in an ambiguous prime. Cues to disambiguation were relatively distant from the prime; the first sentence of each narrative established a situational context congruent with the subordinate meaning of the prime, but the remainder of the narrative did not provide disambiguating information. Following a short delay, primed subordinate meanings were more readily available (compared with an unprimed control), as assessed by responses in a word association task related to the primed meaning. This work confirms that listeners reliably disambiguate spoken ambiguous words on the basis of cues from wider narrative contexts, and that they retain information about the outcome of these disambiguation processes to inform subsequent encounters of the same word form.

Recovery from misinterpretations during online sentence processing.

Misinterpretations during language comprehension are common. The ability to recover from processing difficulties is therefore crucial for successful day-to-day communication. Previous research on the recovery from misinterpretations has focused on sentences containing syntactic ambiguities. The present study instead investigated the outcome of comprehension processes and online reading behavior when misinterpretations occurred due to lexical-semantic ambiguity. Ninety-six adult participants read "garden-path" sentences in which an ambiguous word was disambiguated toward an unexpected meaning (e.g., "The ball was crowded"), while their eye movements were monitored. A meaning coherence judgment task required them to decide whether or not each sentence made sense. Results suggested that readers did not always engage in reinterpretation processes but instead followed a "good enough" processing strategy. Successful detection of a violation of sentence coherence and associated reinterpretation processes also required additional processing time compared to sentences that did not induce a misinterpretation. Although these reinterpretation-related processing costs were relatively stable across individuals, there was some evidence to suggest that readers with greater lexical expertise benefited from greater sensitivity to the disambiguating information, and were able to flexibly adapt their online reading behavior to recover from misinterpretations more efficiently. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).