» Articles » PMID: 32509043

Linguistic Information in Auditory Dynamic Events Contributes to the Detection of Fine, Not Coarse Event Boundaries

Overview
Specialty Psychology
Date 2020 Jun 9
PMID 32509043
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Human observers (comprehenders) segment dynamic information into discrete events. That is, although there is continuous sensory information, comprehenders perceive boundaries between two meaningful units of information. In narrative comprehension, comprehenders use linguistic, non-linguistic , and physical cues for this event boundary perception. Yet, it is an open question - both from a theoretical and an empirical perspective - how linguistic and non-linguistic cues contribute to this process. The current study explores how linguistic cues contribute to the participants' ability to segment continuous auditory information into discrete, hierarchically structured events. Native speakers of German and non-native speakers, who neither spoke nor understood German, segmented a German audio drama into coarse and fine events. Whereas native participants could make use of linguistic, non-linguistic, and physical cues for segmentation, non-native participants could only use non-linguistic and physical cues. We analyzed segmentation behavior in terms of the ability to identify coarse and fine event boundaries and the resulting hierarchical structure. Non-native listeners identified almost identical coarse event boundaries as native listeners, but missed some of the fine event boundaries identified by the native listeners. Interestingly, hierarchical event perception (as measured by hierarchical alignment and enclosure) was comparable for native and non-native participants. In summary, linguistic cues contributed particularly to the identification of certain fine event boundaries. The results are discussed with regard to the current theories of event cognition.

Citing Articles

Effects of Language Proficiency on Selective Attention Patterns at Segmenting Boundaries in English Audio Sentences.

Mei Y, Chen F, Chen X Brain Sci. 2025; 14(12.

PMID: 39766403 PMC: 11674264. DOI: 10.3390/brainsci14121204.


Bayesian Surprise Predicts Human Event Segmentation in Story Listening.

Kumar M, Goldstein A, Michelmann S, Zacks J, Hasson U, Norman K Cogn Sci. 2023; 47(10):e13343.

PMID: 37867379 PMC: 11654724. DOI: 10.1111/cogs.13343.


Measuring event segmentation: An investigation into the stability of event boundary agreement across groups.

Sasmita K, Swallow K Behav Res Methods. 2022; 55(1):428-447.

PMID: 35441362 PMC: 9017965. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-022-01832-5.


Cross-codal integration of bridging-event information in narrative understanding.

Huff M, Rosenfelder D, Oberbeck M, Merkt M, Papenmeier F, Meitz T Mem Cognit. 2020; 48(6):942-956.

PMID: 32342288 PMC: 7381469. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-020-01039-z.

References
1.
Huff M, Maurer A, Brich I, Pagenkopf A, Wickelmaier F, Papenmeier F . Construction and updating of event models in auditory event processing. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2017; 44(2):307-320. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000482. View

2.
Malaia E, Wilbur R . Kinematic signatures of telic and atelic events in ASL predicates. Lang Speech. 2012; 55(Pt 3):407-21. DOI: 10.1177/0023830911422201. View

3.
Perrachione T, Chiao J, Wong P . Asymmetric cultural effects on perceptual expertise underlie an own-race bias for voices. Cognition. 2009; 114(1):42-55. PMC: 2784142. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.08.012. View

4.
Baker L, Levin D . The role of relational triggers in event perception. Cognition. 2014; 136:14-29. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.11.030. View

5.
Barr D, Levy R, Scheepers C, Tily H . Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. J Mem Lang. 2014; 68(3). PMC: 3881361. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001. View