» Articles » PMID: 28653273

Attentional Focus Affects How Events Are Segmented and Updated in Narrative Reading

Overview
Journal Mem Cognit
Specialty Psychology
Date 2017 Jun 28
PMID 28653273
Citations 14
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Readers generate situation models representing described events, but the nature of these representations may differ depending on the reading goals. We assessed whether instructions to pay attention to different situational dimensions affect how individuals structure their situation models (Exp. 1) and how they update these models when situations change (Exp. 2). In Experiment 1, participants read and segmented narrative texts into events. Some readers were oriented to pay specific attention to characters or space. Sentences containing character or spatial-location changes were perceived as event boundaries-particularly if the reader was oriented to characters or space, respectively. In Experiment 2, participants read narratives and responded to recognition probes throughout the texts. Readers who were oriented to the spatial dimension were more likely to update their situation models at spatial changes; all readers tracked the character dimension. The results from both experiments indicated that attention to individual situational dimensions influences how readers segment and update their situation models. More broadly, the results provide evidence for a global situation model updating mechanism that serves to set up new models at important narrative changes.

Citing Articles

Large-scale study of human memory for meaningful narratives.

Georgiou A, Can T, Katkov M, Tsodyks M Learn Mem. 2025; 32(2).

PMID: 39984195 PMC: 11852912. DOI: 10.1101/lm.054043.124.


Events shape long-term memory for story information.

Smith M, Kurby C, Bailey H Discourse Process. 2023; 60(2):141-161.

PMID: 37456554 PMC: 10343716. DOI: 10.1080/0163853x.2023.2185408.


Individual differences in neural event segmentation of continuous experiences.

Sava-Segal C, Richards C, Leung M, Finn E Cereb Cortex. 2023; 33(13):8164-8178.

PMID: 36994470 PMC: 10321113. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhad106.


Shared neural representations and temporal segmentation of political content predict ideological similarity.

de Bruin D, van Baar J, Rodriguez P, FeldmanHall O Sci Adv. 2023; 9(5):eabq5920.

PMID: 36724226 PMC: 9891706. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abq5920.


The effects of contextual certainty on tension induction and resolution.

You S, Sun L, Yang Y Cogn Neurodyn. 2023; 17(1):191-201.

PMID: 36704622 PMC: 9871111. DOI: 10.1007/s11571-022-09810-5.


References
1.
Bailey H, Zacks J . Situation model updating in young and older adults: Global versus incremental mechanisms. Psychol Aging. 2015; 30(2):232-44. PMC: 4451381. DOI: 10.1037/a0039081. View

2.
Radvansky G, Copeland D . Reading times and the detection of event shift processing. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2010; 36(1):210-6. DOI: 10.1037/a0017258. View

3.
Rinck M, Weber U . Who when where: an experimental test of the event-indexing model. Mem Cognit. 2004; 31(8):1284-92. DOI: 10.3758/bf03195811. View

4.
Bower G, Rinck M . Selecting one among many referents in spatial situation models. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2001; 27(1):81-98. View

5.
OBrien E, Rizzella M, Albrecht J, Halleran J . Updating a situation model: a memory-based text processing view. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1998; 24(5):1200-10. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.24.5.1200. View