ArticleMemory & cognition2026
Macroplanning in language production: Revisiting the network description task.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this experiment, we examined pressures that influence linearization decisions when speakers plan and produce spoken descriptions that extend across multiple utterances. More specifically, we aimed to investigate macroplanning in discourse-level production using data from both speech and eye movements. Participants were shown 48 networks that contained two separate branches varying in length (number of nodes) and complexity (number of choice points). Each participant described 24 experimental networks and 24 filler networks while their eye movements and speech were recorded. We found that the location of prespeech fixations did not predict the first described branch. We also found that once speakers began to speak, they described the networks highly incrementally. These results are consistent with extensive planning prior to initiation of a complex description, as well as being indicative of a highly incremental production strategy following the onset of the description. Lastly, we report that speakers prioritize the shorter side of the network, regardless of branch complexity, which may suggest that speakers evaluate perceptual features and prioritize the side that appears to be easier to describe based simply on its length. Overall, our results are consistent with speakers using an apprehension phase to develop a macroplan for multi-utterance descriptions, a plan that is based on perceptual features. These findings offer support for incrementalism in language production, extending this principle to discourse-level production.
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.