Why Look? Reasons for Eye Movements Related to Language Production.

By Zenzi M. Griffin. 2004

523 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b205613cc31355d47b603d22a5048f6e57445360

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Citations in the corpus

VISUAL SALIENCY DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR EYE MOVEMENTS DURING VISUAL SEARCH IN REAL-WORLD SCENES (2007, unknown): “McCarley, Wang, Kramer, Irwin, & Peterson, 2003; Peterson, Kramer, Wang, Irwin, & McCarley, 2001) than research that uses more traditional measures such as reaction time (e.g. Horowitz & Wolfe, 1998 ).”
Processing and learning of enhanced English collocations: An eye movement study (2017, background): “Eye-tracking can provide temporal and spatial information on a learner’s moment-to-moment attention distribution and is a reliable indicator of participants’ attention (Henderson & Ferreira, 2004; Israel & Duffy, 2009).”
An adaptive algorithm for fixation, saccade, and glissade detection in eyetracking data (2010, background): “Since the duration, prevalence, and direction of such events reflect ongoing cognitive processes in humans, the conversion to events is an essential part in the vast majority of eye movement studies (see, e.g., Irwin, 2004, and the review by Rayner, 1998, pp. 374–375).”
Interpreting pronouns and demonstratives in Finnish: Evidence for a form-specific approach to reference resolution (2008, background): “…of tämä combined with the fact that it takes about 150 200 ms to launch and program an eye movement (see e.g., Matin, Shao, & Boff 1993; see also Altmann & Kamide, 2004; Dahan, Magnuson, Tanenhaus, & Hogan, 2001; Saslow, 1967) is compatible with the timing of the downturn, which starts around…”
How are eye fixation durations controlled during scene viewing? Further evidence from a scene onset delay paradigm (2009, background): “An open empirical question is whether this variability in fixation duration reflects underlying differences in online, moment-to-moment visual and cognitive processing (Henderson & Ferreira, 2004).”
Psycholinguistics, formal grammars, and cognitive science (2005, background): “This technique has generated an enormous amount of interest, with psycholinguists using it to examine not just word recognition processes but also parsing and language production (for a review, see Henderson and Ferreira 2004).”
Visual-shape competition during language-mediated attention is based on lexical input and not modulated by contextual appropriateness (2007, background): “Recently, the visual world paradigm (Cooper, 1974; Tanenhaus, Spivey-Knowlton, Eberhard, & Sedivy, 1995) has begun to illuminate some very basic questions concerning the online interpretation of speech and its integration with visual context (see Henderson & Ferreira, 2004, for recent review).”
Watching the eyes when talking about size: An investigation of message formulation and utterance planning (2006, background): “This finding also suggests that the relationship between gaze and speaking may play a facilitatory rather than a necessary role in picture naming and scene description (see Griffin, 2004b).”
Planning in sentence production: evidence for the phrase as a default planning scope. (2010, unknown): “…the consequent need to focus attention on retrieving and beginning production of only one word at a time in order to maintain the message in mind while focusing on the next word to be produced, thereby avoiding interference in the selection of words in their proper sequence (Griffin, 2003, 2004).”
Cross-linguistic differences in case marking shape neural power dynamics and gaze behavior during sentence planning. (2022, background): “are tightly linked to structural and lexical processes (Griffin & Bock, 2000; Griffin, 2004; Norcliffe & Konopka, 2015).”