ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2026
Eye movements reveal a dissociation between prediction and structural processing difficulty in language comprehension.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Agreement Errors Disrupt Eye Movements in Reading Only When They Are Detected.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the process of extracting a meaning from a text, our eyes linger much more on some words than others, and we often reread earlier portions of the text. These disruptions to the reading process are particularly common in syntactically ambiguous sentences. What explains the difficulty presented by these sentences? One prominent hypothesis explains it as a special case of the impact of a word's predictability (operationalized via surprisal) on the difficulty of processing the word. This contrasts with theories that attribute these disruptions to errors in the structure-building process. Earlier attempts to address this debate have been inconclusive because of small numbers of participants, coarse measurements of the reading process that are ill-suited to disentangling these competing views, and a limited range of surprisal estimates. Here, we conduct a large-scale study ([Formula: see text]) examining eye movements during the reading of syntactically challenging sentences, using 409 types of surprisal estimates from language models with multiple architectures and training settings. We find a stark dissociation: Early effects of syntactic disambiguation are well-approximated by language model surprisal, but syntactic disambiguation incurs a significant additional cost, reflected in an increase in rereading that is not explained by language model surprisal. We conclude that surprisal can capture routine structure-building, but not the cost of detecting or correcting errors in the structure-building process.
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.