course title
Eye movements and language comprehension

dates and location
Wednesdays 0900-1100, II.24.0.50 (Golm campus, Haus 24, Room 0.50

how to sign up: moodle
Please use Moodle to sign up for this course and to interact electronically.

office hours
I am available any time to students in this course; just make an appointment with me. Just check my calendar to decide on a time.
what this course is about
Eyetracking is an important methodology for understanding human cognition. In this course we are especially interested in what eye movements tell us about language processing.
We will pursue two main topics in this course:
  • Topic 1: Regressions and what they tell us about retrieval processes
  • Topic 2: Expectation, predictability and eye-movements
    • Throughout, a third unifying theme will keep appearing in the course: modeling backward (e.g., reanalysis) and forward looking processes (e.g., prediction) in computational models of parsing and eye-movement control. That's why the course will begin with a look at how E-Z Reader deals with this issue. After that overview, we will look at the two topics in some detail.

    grading
    Grading will be based on participation in the class discussions, one or more class presentations, and the submission of at least three questions regarding the reading to be presented the following week. This means that when a paper is to be discussed one week from now, the submission is due now. The questions should be sent to the moodle forum (for each paper there will be a separate forum).
    Final scores will be based on the following mapping described in the Studienordnung: 95-100%=1,0 (A);90-94=1,3 (A-);85-89=1,7 (B+);80-84=2,0 (B);75-79=2,3 (B-);70-74=2,7 (C+);65-69=3,0 (C);60-64=3,3 (C-);55-59=3,7 (D+);50-54=4,0 (D);45-49=5,0 (F). If a student's score falls between the cracks, it will be treated as falling in the higher bin. Also, if a student is in a higher semester than 1st, I will adjust their scores so that 1st semesters are not at a disadvantage (this holds only if the advanced students outperform the 1st semesters).
    Here is an excerpt from the Studienordnung on what these major categories are supposed to mean:
  • 1 = sehr gut (eine hervorragende Leistung)
  • 2 = gut (eine Leistung, die erheblich ueber den durchschnittlichen Anforderungen liegt)
  • 3 = befriedigend (eine Leistung, die durchschnittlichen Anforderungen entspricht)
  • 4 = ausreichend (eine Leistung, die trotz ihrer Maengel noch den Anforderungen genuegt)
  • 5 = nicht ausreichend (eine Leistung, die wegen erheblicher Maengel den Anforderungen nicht genuegt)
    • Students are expected to attend class regularly. If a student misses a class, the student is responsible for finding out what the assignment was, what readings were assigned, and what material was covered.
    Note: If more than three submissions are missed, the student fails the course.

    Submission dates are strict (usually beginning of class the following week).

    conduct in the classroom
  • Please do not engage in private conversations during class.
  • All cell phones must be switched off (except by permission from me).
  • Please do not walk into class after it starts (09:15 is the deadline to be ready for class).
  • Questions to me during class are actively encouraged.


    • evaluation of the instructor
    Anonymous feedback (especially complaints about the course) is welcome: Click here for form

    schedule
    date topic reading moderator homework
    1: Oct 22 overview lecture -none- Shravan read ahead
    1a: Oct 22 special lecture 1300-1500 in room 0.50 -none- Mattias Nilsson questions for Reichle et al [1]
    2: Oct 29 regressions and re-reading Reichle et al [1] Shravan questions for Frazier and Rayner [2] due Nov 12
    3: Nov 5 no class
    4: Nov 12 no class
    5: Nov 19 regressions and re-reading Frazier and Rayner [2] Janine+Heike questions for Meseguer et al [3]
    6: Nov 26 regressions and re-reading Meseguer et al [3] Claudius Klose questions for Mitchell et al [4]
    7: Dec 3 regressions and re-reading Mitchell et al [4] Anja questions for Weger and Inhoff [5]
    8: Dec 10 regressions and re-reading Weger and Inhoff [5] Tobias and Philipp questions for Staub [6]
    9: Dec 17 reanalysis Staub [6] ? questions for Boston et al [7]
    10: Jan 7 predictive processes and eye movements Boston et al [7] ? questions for Demberg and Keller et al [8]
    11: Jan 14 predictive processes and eye movements special lecture by Marisa Boston -none- read ahead
    12: Jan 21 predictive processes and eye movements Demberg and Keller [8] ? questions for Pynte et al [9]
    13: Jan 28 predictive processes and eye movements Pynte et al [9] ? questions for Logacev and Vasishth [10]
    14: Feb 4 retrieval processes Logacev and Vasishth [10] Shravan -none
    15: Feb 11 wrap up


    reading list [ask me for the articles]
    [1] Erik D. Reichle, Tessa Warren, and Kerry McConnell. Using E-Z reader to model the effects of higher-level language processing on eye movements during reading. submitted, 2008.
    [ bib ]
    [2] L. Frazier and K. Rayner. Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14(2):178-210, 1982.
    [ bib ]
    [3] E. Meseguer, M. Carreiras, and C. Clifton Jr. Overt reanalysis strategies and eye movements during the reading of mild garden path sentences. Memory and Cognition, 30(4):551-561, 2002.
    [ bib ]
    [4] D.C. Mitchell, X. Shen, M.J. Green, and T.L. Hodgson. Modifier attachment in sentence parsing: Evidence from Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, ?:???-???, 2008.
    [ bib ]
    [5] U.W. Weger and A.W. Inhoff. Long-range regressions to previously read words are guided by spatial and verbal memory. Memory & Cognition, 35(6):1293-1306, 2007.
    [ bib ]
    [6] A. Staub. The return of the repressed: Abandoned parses facilitate syntactic reanalysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(2):299-323, 2007.
    [ bib ]
    [7] Marisa Ferrara Boston, John T. Hale, Umesh Patil, Reinhold Kliegl, and Shravan Vasishth. Parsing costs as predictors of reading difficulty: An evaluation using the Potsdam Sentence Corpus. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 2(1):1-12, 2008.
    [ bib ]
    [8] Vera Demberg and Frank Keller. Eye-tracking corpora as evidence for theories of syntactic processing complexity. Submitted to Cognition, 2008.
    [ bib ]
    [9] Joel Pynte, Boris New, and Alan Kennedy. A multiple regression analysis of syntactic and semantic influences in reading normal text. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 2(1):1-11, 2008.
    [ bib ]
    [10] Pavel Logacev and Shravan Vasishth. Morphological ambiguity and working memory. In Peter de Swart and Monique Lamers, editors, Case, Word Order, and Prominence: Psycholinguistic and theoretical approaches to argument structure, Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics. Springer, 2009.
    [ bib ]