Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37179896›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023

Integration of visual context in early and late bilingual language processing: evidence from eye-tracking.

Dato Abashidze, Angela Schmidt, Pavel Trofimovich, Julien Mercier

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Dato AbashidzeLeibniz-Centre for General Linguistics, Berlin, Germany.
Angela SchmidtLeibniz-Centre for General Linguistics, Berlin, Germany.
Pavel TrofimovichEducation Department, Concordia University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Julien MercierDépartement d' éducation et formation spécialisées, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous research on the processing of language embedded in a rich visual context has revealed the strong effect that a recently viewed action event has on language comprehension. It has been shown that listeners are more likely to view the target object of a recently performed event than look at the target object of a plausible future event during sentence utterance, regardless of the tense cue. In the current visual-world eye-tracking experiments, we tested the strength of the recently observed visual context with a group of English monolingual and two groups of English-French early and late bilingual speakers. By comparing these different groups, we examined whether bilingual speakers, as a consequence of greater cognitive flexibility when integrating visual context and language information, show early anticipatory eye-movements toward the target object. We further asked whether early and late bilinguals show differences in their processing. The findings of the three eye-tracking experiments revealed an overall preference for the recently seen event. However, as a result of the early provision of tense cue, this preference was quickly diminished in all three groups. Moreover, the bilingual groups showed an earlier decrease in reliance on the recently seen event compared to monolingual speakers and the early bilinguals showed anticipatory eye-movements toward the plausible future event target. Furthermore, a post-experimental memory test revealed that the bilingual groups recalled the future events marginally better than the recent events, whereas the reverse was found in the monolingual groups.

Indexed as

bilingualismexecutive functioneye-trackingrecent-event preferencespoken sentence comprehension

Identifiers

PMID37179896
PMCPMC10171561

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.