%0 Journal Article %1 MalsburgVasishth2011 %A von der Malsburg, Titus %A Vasishth, Shravan %D 2011 %J Journal of Memory and Language %K eyemovements method myown parsing scanpaths syntacticreanalysis %T What is the scanpath signature of syntactic reanalysis? %X Which repair strategy does the language system deploy when it gets garden-pathed, and what can regressive eye movements in reading tell us about reanalysis strategies? Several influential eye-tracking studies on syntactic reanalysis (Frazier & Rayner, 1982; Meseguer, Carreiras, & Clifton, 2002; Mitchell, Shen, Green, & Hodgson, 2008) have addressed this question by examining scanpaths, i.e., sequential patterns of eye fixations. However, in the absence of a suitable method for analyzing scanpaths, these studies relied on simplified dependent measures that are arguably ambiguous and hard to interpret. We address the theoretical question of repair strategy by developing a new method that quantifies scanpath similarity. Our method reveals several distinct fixation strategies associated with reanalysis that went undetected in a previously published data set (Meseguer et al., 2002). One prevalent pattern suggests re-parsing of the sentence, a strategy that has been discussed in the literature (Frazier & Rayner, 1982); however, readers differed tremendously in how they orchestrated the various fixation strategies. Our results suggest that the human parsing system non-deterministically adopts different strategies when confronted with the disambiguating material in garden-path sentences.

@article{MalsburgVasishth2011, abstract = {Which repair strategy does the language system deploy when it gets garden-pathed, and what can regressive eye movements in reading tell us about reanalysis strategies? Several influential eye-tracking studies on syntactic reanalysis (Frazier & Rayner, 1982; Meseguer, Carreiras, & Clifton, 2002; Mitchell, Shen, Green, & Hodgson, 2008) have addressed this question by examining scanpaths, i.e., sequential patterns of eye fixations. However, in the absence of a suitable method for analyzing scanpaths, these studies relied on simplified dependent measures that are arguably ambiguous and hard to interpret. We address the theoretical question of repair strategy by developing a new method that quantifies scanpath similarity. Our method reveals several distinct fixation strategies associated with reanalysis that went undetected in a previously published data set (Meseguer et al., 2002). One prevalent pattern suggests re-parsing of the sentence, a strategy that has been discussed in the literature (Frazier & Rayner, 1982); however, readers differed tremendously in how they orchestrated the various fixation strategies. Our results suggest that the human parsing system non-deterministically adopts different strategies when confronted with the disambiguating material in garden-path sentences. }, added-at = {2011-05-16T14:02:14.000+0200}, author = {von der Malsburg, Titus and Vasishth, Shravan}, biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2f8adfa94356021fa7d9bf2bc33ce4a68/tmalsburg}, interhash = {0c3f6ccc8daf583115061a6057826af7}, intrahash = {f8adfa94356021fa7d9bf2bc33ce4a68}, journal = {Journal of Memory and Language}, keywords = {eyemovements method myown parsing scanpaths syntacticreanalysis}, timestamp = {2011-05-16T14:02:14.000+0200}, title = {What is the scanpath signature of syntactic reanalysis?}, year = 2011 }