ArticleFrontiers in psychology2011
Referential and visual cues to structural choice in visually situated sentence production.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hearing Pronouns Primes Speakers to Use Pronouns.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2025Article
- Referent Cueing, Position, and Animacy as Accessibility Factors in Visually Situated Sentence Production.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- Effects of Visual Priming and Event Orientation on Word Order Choice in Russian Sentence Production.Frontiers in psychology · 2019Article
- Describing Events: Changes in Eye Movements and Language Production Due to Visual and Conceptual Properties of Scenes.Frontiers in psychology · 2019Article
- Occluding the face diminishes the conceptual accessibility of an animate agent.Language, cognition and neuroscience · 2019Article
- Cued by What We See and Hear: Spatial Reference Frame Use in Language.Frontiers in psychology · 2018Article
- Interfaces between language and cognition.Frontiers in psychology · 2013Article
- How language production shapes language form and comprehension.Frontiers in psychology · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We investigated how conceptually informative (referent preview) and conceptually uninformative (pointer to referent's location) visual cues affect structural choice during production of English transitive sentences. Cueing the Agent or the Patient prior to presenting the target-event reliably predicted the likelihood of selecting this referent as the sentential Subject, triggering, correspondingly, the choice between active and passive voice. Importantly, there was no difference in the magnitude of the general Cueing effect between the informative and uninformative cueing conditions, suggesting that attentionally driven structural selection relies on a direct automatic mapping mechanism from attentional focus to the Subject's position in a sentence. This mechanism is, therefore, independent of accessing conceptual, and possibly lexical, information about the cued referent provided by referent preview.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.