Revising what readers know: Updating text representations during narrative comprehension

Rapp, David N.; Kendeou, Panayiota

doi:10.3758/bf03192934

Cited by 112 publications

(109 citation statements)

References 78 publications

(98 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

102

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is also consistent with the Structure-Building framework (Gernsbacher, 1990(Gernsbacher, , 1997, which argues that low working memory readers may experience problems with comprehension, because they fail to suppress no longer relevant information due to the generation of new substructures that reduce coherence of the situation model (e.g., Gernsbacher & Faust, 1991). In relation to this, a more specific proposal in the field of revision suggests that the information that is no longer relevant or outdated may exert an influence disrupting comprehension (e.g., Kendeou et al, 2013;O'Brien et al, 2010;Rapp & Kendeou, 2007. Taking all this evidence into account, our P3b results indicate that, in contrast to high working memory readers, low working memory readers have problems revising their situation model because they fail to inhibit the initial wrong interpretation.…”

Section: Evaluation and Revision Processes: P3a And P3bmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hereafter, we refer to regulation as a revision process. The revision process is clearly a specific updating activity that involves the inhibition of an interpretation that was encoded into the situation model in favour of the new information (Rapp & Kendeou, 2007). Interestingly, both the evaluation of mismatches and the revision of no longer relevant information can occur at an inferential processing level.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A continuation that invites an inference (e.g., 'The bigger animal barked loudly…') would also require readers to revise the earlier inference that the animal was a 'cat.' We have called this process inferential revision, and a deeper understanding of how individual differences in working memory affect this process is the main goal of the present study.A number of different paradigms show that while readers easily incorporate new information into their situation model (e.g., Rapp & Kendeou, 2007;Rapp & Taylor, 2004), they do not always successfully revise their mental representation when new information contradicts previously stated information (e.g., Guéraud, Harmon, & Peracchi, 2005;O'Brien, et al, 1998;Rapp & Kendeou, 2007. In a classic example, O'Brien et al (1998) found that participants took longer to read a sentence regarding a person's behavior when that behavior contradicted earlier information (e.g., reading 'Mary ordered a cheeseburger and fries' after 'Mary, a health nut, had been a strict vegetarian for 10 years').…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Inferential revision in narrative texts: An ERP study

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We evaluated the process of inferential revision during text comprehension in adults. Participants with high or low working memory read short texts, in which the introduction supported two plausible concepts (e.g., 'guitar/ violin'), although one was more probable ('guitar'). There were three possible continuations: a neutral sentence, which did not refer back to either concept; a no-revise sentence, which referred to a general property consistent with either concept (e.g., '…beautiful curved body'); and a revise sentence, which referred to a property that was consistent with only the less likely concept (e.g., '…matching bow'). Readers took longer to read the sentence in the revise condition, indicating that they were able to evaluate their comprehension and detect a mismatch. In a final sentence, a target noun referred to the alternative concept supported in the revise condition (e.g., 'violin'). ERPs indicated that both working memory groups were able to evaluate their comprehension of the text (P3a), but only high working memory readers were able to revise their initial incorrect interpretation (P3b) and integrate the new information (N400) when reading the revise sentence. Low working memory readers had difficulties inhibiting the no-longer-relevant interpretation and thus failed to revise their situation model, and they experienced problems integrating semantically related information into an accurate memory representation.Keywords Revising information . Inference making . Working memory . P3a . P3b . N400Successful text comprehenders construct an integrated, coherent, and accurate mental representation of the state of affairs described by the text. The construction of this situation model requires the reader to go beyond a representation of the surface characteristics of the text by generating inferences and incorporating world knowledge from long-term memory (Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978). The construction of the situation model is a dynamic process (e.g., Kintsch, 1998;McNamara & Magliano, 2009;Rapp & van den Broek, 2005); the text is processed incrementally (e.g., word by word and sentence by sentence) and, therefore, the situation model is constantly being updated as the text unfolds. As each new piece of information is processed, it must be integrated with the mental representation constructed so far. This involves monitoring for comprehension to identify when and where additional processing, such as inference generation, is necessary to ensure coherence (Kintsch, 1998;Perfetti, Stafura, & Adlof, 2013).Comprehension monitoring is the metacognitive awareness that readers have about what they are reading (Wagoner, 1983). Baker (1985) distinguished two monitoring phases: evaluation and regulation. Evaluation, more recently defined as validation (Singer, 2013), refers to the process that allows readers to detect an inconsistency or mismatch in the text (e.g., Vauras, Kinnunen, Salonen, & Lehtinen, 2008). Current evidence on this process in adult readers converges on the view that evaluation is a rou...

show abstract

Section: Evaluation and Revision Processes: P3a And P3bmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Inferential revision in narrative texts: An ERP study

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, if a fire is initially linked to careless storage of volatile materials, a later correction stating that no such materials had been found will be particularly effective (i.e., reduce references to negligence in subsequent recall and inference tests), if the correction additionally states that arson-related materials were discovered (Ecker et al, in press;Rapp & Kendeou, 2007; but see van Oostendorp & Bonebakker, 1999). In terms of the mental-event model theory, the alternative can be used to fill what would otherwise be left void by the retraction in the event model.…”

Section: Previous Attempts To Eliminate Continued Influencementioning

confidence: 99%

Explicit warnings reduce but do not eliminate the continued influence of misinformation

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A great deal of research has been conducted to investigate this very issue. For example, some researchers have incorporated additional manipulations into the inconsistency paradigm, including adding qualifications with and without reasons (e.g., "Mary doesn't stick to her diet when dining out"), shifting of time frames (e.g., "Mary is not a vegetarian anymore"), and negations and refutations with or without substantial explanations (e.g., "Mary was never a vegetarian") (Guéraud et al 2005;O'Brien et al 1998;Rapp & Kendeou, 2007Zwaan & Madden, 2004). In response to these reading situations, the initially represented information will often display a continued influence on comprehension-regardless of whether that portion of the reader's representation was deemed by the text as operational or not.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Readers’ use of source information in text comprehension

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two experiments, we examined the role of discrepancy on readers' text processing of and memory for the sources of brief news reports. Each story included two assertions that were attributed to different sources. We manipulated whether the second assertion was either discrepant or consistent with the first assertion. On the basis of the discrepancy-induced source comprehension (D-ISC) assumption, we predicted that discrepant stories would promote deeper processing and better memory for the sources conveying the messages, as compared to consistent stories. As predicted, readers mentioned more sources in summaries of discrepant stories, recalled more sources, made more fixations, and displayed longer gaze times in source areas when reading discrepant than when reading consistent stories. In Experiment 2, we found enhanced memory for source-content links for discrepant stories even when intersentential connectors were absent, and regardless of the reading goals. Discussion was focused on discrepancies as one mechanism by which readers are prompted to encode source-content links more deeply, as a method of integrating disparate pieces of information into a coherent mental representation of a text.Keywords Discrepancies . Eye movements . Memory . Sources . Text comprehensionThere is an old saying that "there are two sides to every story." This saying describes the observation that, in everyday contexts, we are frequently presented with and must comprehend uncertain or tentative events, which have resulted in multiple interpretations. In newspaper reports, for example, a single event is often described (e.g., a fire in a building) that may be attributed to various reasons (sabotage vs. electrical malfunction), either within the same report or across several different ones. These kinds of discrepancies are notably different from simple errors in reporting; in fact, they are part and parcel of the state of affairs of the situation. In the present example, the cause of the fire may have been uncertain at the time that the newspapers were printed, investigation may be ongoing, and so on.The present experiments were designed to give some clarity regarding the cognitive mechanisms that operate during the comprehension of discrepancies like these when they appear in texts, particularly when different sources are associated with the conflicting pieces of information (e.g., "The detective claims that the fire in the building was due to sabotage. However, a journalist asserts that the fire was caused by an electrical malfunction."). In the present work, we argue that comprehending discrepancies of this kind requires that readers attend to-and at times rememberwho said what. More colloquially, in the event that readers have accessed a discrepancy during reading, are they more Mem Cogn (2012) 40:450-465 DOI 10.3758/s13421-011-0160-6 likely to pay attention to and remember the "two sides to the story," and if so, why? Do readers regularly monitor their understandings of texts and notice when texts present conflicting...

show abstract

Revising what readers know: Updating text representations during narrative comprehension

Cited by 112 publications

References 78 publications

Inferential revision in narrative texts: An ERP study

Inferential revision in narrative texts: An ERP study

Explicit warnings reduce but do not eliminate the continued influence of misinformation

Readers’ use of source information in text comprehension

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About