ArticleJournal of psycholinguistic research2023
Pupil Dilation Response to Prosody and Syntax During Auditory Sentence Processing.
Article in Journal of psycholinguistic research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Eyes on the Pupil Size: Pupillary Response During Sentence Processing in Aphasia.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Baseline pupil size encodes task-related information and modulates the task-evoked response in a speech-in-noise task.Trends in hearingArticle
- The Time Course of the Pupillary Response to Auditory Emotions in Pseudospeech, Music, and Vocalizations.Trends in hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Pupil dilation response has been shown to reflect different levels of sentence processing during prosodic and syntactic processing in language comprehension. Our pupillometry experiment aimed to investigate whether pupil diameter was sensitive to the auditory sentence processing involved in comprehending congruent and incongruent statements. Twenty-one participants were presented with 300 auditory stimuli consisting of syntactically and/or prosodically congruent and incongruent sentences in Turkish. The pupillary response results were significant only for syntactically incongruent sentences and for sentences that were both syntactically and prosodically incongruent. This indicates that prosody had no significant effect on its own. Based on the hypothesis that prosodic and syntactic processing require cognitive sensitivity for auditory sentence comprehension, we expected an increase in pupil diameter for both processes. However, our findings are consistent with the previous assumptions that pupil size increases during syntactic manipulation, but our findings showed that prosodic processing does not increase pupil size, contrary to previous studies.
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.