Conscious rereading is confirmatory: Evidence from bidirectional self-paced reading

Abstract

In two web-based experiments, we evaluated the bidirectional self-paced reading (BSPR) paradigm recently proposed by Paape and Vasishth (2021). We used four sentence types: NP/Z garden-path sentences, RRC garden-path sentences, sentences containing inconsistent discourse continuations, and sentences containing reflexive anaphors with feature-matching but grammatically unavailable antecedents. Our results show that regressions in BSPR are associated with a decrease in positive acceptability judgments. Across all sentence types, we observed online reading patterns that are consistent with the existing eye-tracking literature. NP/Z but not RRC garden-path sentences also showed some indication of selective rereading, as predicted by the selective reanalysis hypothesis of Frazier and Rayner (1982). However, selective rereading was associated with decreased rather than increased sentence acceptability, which is not in line with the selective reanalysis hypothesis. We discuss the implications regarding the connection between selective rereading and conscious awareness, and for the use of BSPR in general.

Estimating the True Cost of Garden Pathing: A Computational Model of Latent Cognitive Processes

“…In addition to their high cost, both covert and overt reanalysis are very likely to fail in NP/Z sentences. This is consistent with previous findings from comprehension tasks (see Fujita & Cunnings, 2021, for a review), and with the observation of Paape and Vasishth (2021) that regressions in NP/Z sentences were associated with fewer rather than more positive acceptability judgments. In RRC sentences, by contrast, reanalysis is often, if not always, successful.…”

“…In contrast with NP/Z sentences, the “control” condition in RRC sentences is disambiguated via semantic plausibility: A package is not a plausible agent of a sending event while a lawyer is. In contrast with many previous studies on RRCs (e.g., Van Schijndel & Linzen, 2021; Ferreira & Clifton, 1986; Clifton et al., 2003; Trueswell, Tanenhaus, & Garnsey, 1994), the design of Paape and Vasishth (2021) did not feature an unreduced condition ( the lawyer who was sent ...), as the focus of the experiment was to compare the different kinds of disambiguation (orthographic vs. semantic).…”

“…The data of Paape and Vasishth (2021) were collected using a web‐based bidirectional self‐paced reading (BSPR) paradigm. The BSPR paradigm extends regular moving‐window self‐paced reading by giving participants the opportunity to move backward in addition to forward through the sentence in a region‐by‐region fashion (Paape & Vasishth, 2022).…”

“…Fig. 2 summarizes the relevant dependent variables for each sentence type (NP/Z vs. RRC) in the Paape and Vasishth (2021) data: First‐pass reading times at the disambiguating region, first‐pass regressions, and end‐of‐sentence acceptability judgments, as well as their relationships.…”

“…44These assumptions are necessary simplifications. Negative acceptability judgments could, in principle, also arise due to high processing complexity (Hofmeister, Jaeger, Arnon, Sag, & Snider, 2013), while regressions may sometimes be made simply to verify earlier input (see discussion in Paape & Vasishth, 2021). Participants in the study of Paape and Vasishth (2021) were instructed to reject sentences if they violated the rules of English grammar, or if they were contradictory or nonsensical, which should make rejections due to complexity alone highly unlikely.…”