Logo

ICS Colloquia - Elizabeth Schotter - Oct 30 - Shared screen with speaker view
David Quigley
36:22
Re: Parafoveal Preview recognition: I would wonder if the "skipped" group is instead using some sort of guess that is biased by the expectation value - "phone" was a higher expectation than "scarf"...
David Quigley
41:30
(study 3 addressed a lot of this concern!)
Rebecca Lee
01:06:01
Are you interesting in studying or have you studying parafoveal processing of syntactic constructions, in addition to just individual words? Perhaps are people not only just previewing individual words but maybe previewing/processing syntactic patterns in front of the word they’re currently on and possibly processing the schematic meaning of the syntactic construction? I’m not sure how this could be tested or whether you’re interested in this?
Farron Straitz
01:06:12
In natural reading we also have a vertical aspect, with words organized into rows, so I was wondering if it might be true that in natural reading words could be parafoveally processed multiple times?
Mike Klymkowsky
01:06:45
ah the joys of zoom
Steve Sommer
01:07:16
oldest trick in the zoom book…
Rebecca Lee
01:09:50
Are you interesting in studying or have you studying parafoveal processing of syntactic constructions, in addition to just individual words? Perhaps are people not only just previewing individual words but maybe previewing/processing syntactic patterns in front of the word they’re currently on and possibly processing the schematic meaning of the syntactic construction? I’m not sure how this could be tested or whether you’re interested in this?
Megan Caruso
01:11:05
How do the patterns with n400 and LCP hold up in more natural readings such as reading paragraphs?
Jon Cai
01:20:30
This might be a silly question, I may like to ask what would you do to hypothetical languages that is not sequential such as the one in the movie “arrival” or in general hieroglyphs. Do you think the parafoveal processing of word/meaning recognition would be the same?
Shannon McKnight
01:22:09
Have you looked at earlier points in the ERP to test the disparate timeline problem that you presented in the beginning of the talk? Do you see differences in earlier ERP components based on your preview/anomaly conditions?
Jon Cai
01:23:52
thanks!
David Quigley
01:24:01
(I would expect that reading vs. auditory speed also relies on the pure rate of input and output. I'd look at the chunking of text (you can take in an entire word in one chunk), and conversely, think about how folks who are well trained at taking in auditory input (e.g. the visually impaired who use text to speech), and think about words per minute in either case)
Sara Milligan
01:28:26
Hello!
Albert Kim
01:29:39
Hi Sara!!
Min-Chun Hsiao
01:29:43
Following Rebecca's question, how do you exclude the interference of syntax in the context "travel ____ " with the candidates containing different part-of-speech (north, south, coach, home)?The verb travel selects a noun as its complement.I think this is in the slide describing the results of Schotter & Jia (201x).
Albert Kim
01:32:51
Thank you Liz for an excellent, interesting talk. I have to go to another meeting
Tamara Sumner
01:33:13
Thanks Liz for including some of your collaborators in this presentation.
Donna J Caccamise
01:39:06
wondering if some of the bad spellers have been ID'd as having a reading disability...formerly often labeled ad dyslexia. they might be expected to process word recognition differently....
Steve Sommer
01:43:02
Thanks Liz!
Kayla Cormier
01:43:09
Thank you!
Rebecca Lee
01:43:20
Thank you so much!!! I love this talk!
Shannon McKnight
01:43:25
thank you!
Megan Caruso
01:43:27
Thank you!
David Quigley
01:43:28
Thanks!
Rebekah Tozier
01:43:33
Thank you!