Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31900798›Full record

ArticleMemory & cognition2020

Empathy influences how listeners interpret intonation and meaning when words are ambiguous.

Núria Esteve-Gibert, Amy J Schafer, Barbara Hemforth, Cristel Portes, Céline Pozniak, Mariapaola D'Imperio

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Memory & cognition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Núria Esteve-GibertAix Marseille Univ., CNRS, LPL, Aix-en-Provence, France. nesteveg@uoc.edu.
Amy J SchaferUniversity of Hawaii at Mānoa, Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, USA.
Barbara HemforthLaboratoire de Linguistique Formelle, CNRS, Université Paris Diderot, Paris, France.
Cristel PortesAix Marseille Univ., CNRS, LPL, Aix-en-Provence, France.
Céline PozniakLaboratoire de Linguistique Formelle, CNRS, Université Paris Diderot, Paris, France.
Mariapaola D'ImperioAix Marseille Univ., CNRS, LPL, Aix-en-Provence, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study examines how individual pragmatic skills, and more specifically, empathy, influences language processing when a temporary lexical ambiguity can be resolved via intonation. We designed a visual-world eye-tracking experiment in which participants could anticipate a referent before disambiguating lexical information became available, by inferring either a contrast meaning or a confirmatory meaning from the intonation contour alone. Our results show that individual empathy skills determine how listeners deal with the meaning alternatives of an ambiguous referent, and the way they use intonational meaning to disambiguate the referent. Listeners with better pragmatic skills (higher empathy) were sensitive to intonation cues when forming sound-meaning associations during the unfolding of an ambiguous referent, and showed higher sensitivity to all the alternative interpretations of that ambiguous referent. Less pragmatically skilled listeners showed weaker processing of intonational meaning because they needed subsequent disambiguating material to select a referent and showed less sensitivity to the set of alternative interpretations. Overall, our results call for taking into account individual pragmatic differences in the study of intonational meaning processing and sentence comprehension in general.

Indexed as

EmpathySpeech PerceptionComprehensionCuesHumansLanguageEmpathyEye trackingFrenchHomophoneIndividual differencesIntonational meaningIntonation processing

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.