Pupillometry reveals increased pupil size during indirect request comprehension

References

• Attar, N., Schneps, M., & Pomplun, M. (2013). Pupil size as a measure of working memory load during a complex visual search task. Journal of Vision, 13(9), 160–160. doi: 10.1167/13.9.160
   Google Scholar
• Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
   Google Scholar
• Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
   Google Scholar
• Bašnáková, J., Weber, K., Petersson, K. M., Van Berkum, J., & Hagoort, P. (2014). Beyond the language given: The neural correlates of inferring speaker meaning. Cerebral Cortex, 24(10), 2572–2578. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bht112
   Google Scholar
• Bates, D. Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1–7.
   Google Scholar
• Beatty, J. (1982). Task-evoked pupillary responses, processing load, and the structure of processing resources. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 276–292. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.91.2.276
   Google Scholar
• Beatty, J., & Lucero-Wagoner, B. (2000). The pupillary system. Handbook of Psychophysiology, 2, 142–162.
   Google Scholar
• Ben-Nun, Y. (1986). The use of pupillometry in the study of on-line verbal processing: Evidence for depths of processing. Brain and Language, 28, 1–11. doi: 10.1016/0093-934X(86)90086-6
   Google Scholar
• Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H. (1979). Responding to indirect speech acts. Cognitive psychology, 11(4), 430–477. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(79)90020-3
   Google Scholar
• Coulson, S., & Lovett, C. (2010). Comprehension of non-conventional indirect requests: An event related brain potential study. Psychology, 11, 430–477.
   Google Scholar
• Einhäuser, W., Stout, J., Koch, C., & Carter, O. (2008). Pupil dilation reflects perceptual selection and predicts subsequent stability in perceptual rivalry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(5), 1704–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0707727105
   Google Scholar
• Engelhardt, P. E., Ferreira, F., & Patsenko, E. G. (2010). Pupillometry reveals processing load during spoken language comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(4), 639–645. doi: 10.1080/17470210903469864
   Google Scholar
• Gallagher, H. L., & Frith, C. D. (2003). Functional imaging of ‘theory of mind’. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(2), 77–83. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)00025-6
   Google Scholar
• Gerakaki, S., Sjerps, M. J., & Meyer, A. S. (in press). Planning speech while listening to speech affects memory of heard words.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbs, R. W. (1981). Your wish is my command: Convention and context in interpreting indirect requests. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(4), 431–444. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90542-9
   Google Scholar
• Gibbs, R. W. (1983). Do people always process the literal meanings of indirect requests? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9(3), 524–533.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbs Jr, R. W. (1986). What makes some indirect speech acts conventional? Journal of Memory and Language, 25(2), 181–196. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(86)90028-8
   Google Scholar
• Hess, E. H., & Polt, J. M. (1964). Pupil size in relation to mental activity during simple problem-solving. Science, 143(3611), 1190–1192. doi: 10.1126/science.143.3611.1190
   Google Scholar
• Holtgraves, T. (1994). Communication in context: Effects of speaker status on the comprehension of indirect requests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 20(5), 1215–1218.
   Google Scholar
• Holtgraves, T. (2002). Language as social action. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Holtgraves, T. (2008). Automatic intention recognition in conversation processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(3), 627–645. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.06.001
   Google Scholar
• Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 434–446.
   Google Scholar
• Janisse, M. P. (1977). Pupillometry: The psychology of the pupillary response. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1993). The intensity dimension of thought: pupillometric indices of sentence processing. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology-revue Canadienne De Psychologie Experimentale, 47, 310–339. doi: 10.1037/h0078820
   Google Scholar
• Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Miyake, A. (2003). Neuroindices of cognitive workload: Neuroimaging, pupillometric and event-related potential studies of brain work. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 4(1), 56–88. doi: 10.1080/14639220210159735
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Otero, S. C., Weekes, B. S., & Hutton, S. B. (2011). Pupil size changes during recognition memory. Psychophysiology, 48(10), 1346–53. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01217.x
   Google Scholar
• Özyürek, A., Willems, R., Kita, S., & Hagoort, P. (2007). On-line integration of semantic information from speech and gesture: Insights from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(4), 605–616. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2007.19.4.605
   Google Scholar
• Piquado, T., Isaacowitz, D., & Wingfield, A. (2010). Pupillometry as a measure of cognitive effort in younger and older adults. Psychophysiology, 47(3), 560–569. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00947.x
   Google Scholar
• Porter, G., Troscianko, T., & Gilchrist, I. D. (2007). Effort during visual search and counting: Insights from pupillometry. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(2), 211–229. doi: 10.1080/17470210600673818
   Google Scholar
• Schluroff, M. (1982). Pupil responses to grammatical complexity of sentences. Brain and Language, 17(1), 133–145. doi: 10.1016/0093-934X(82)90010-4
   Google Scholar
• Schluroff, M., Zimmermann, T. E., Freeman, R. B., Hofmeister, K., Lorscheid, T., & Weber, A. (1986). Pupillary responses to syntactic ambiguity of sentences. Brain and Language, 27(2), 322–344. doi: 10.1016/0093-934X(86)90023-4
   Google Scholar
• Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. Syntax and Semantics, 3, 59–82.
   Google Scholar
• Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sirois, S., & Brisson, J. (2014). Pupillometry. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 5(6), 679–692.
   Google Scholar
• Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: UK Blackwell Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Van Ackeren, M. J., Casasanto, D., Bekkering, H., Hagoort, P., & Rueschemeyer, S. A. (2012). Pragmatics in action: Indirect requests engage theory of mind areas and the cortical motor network. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(11), 2237–2247. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00274
   Google Scholar
• Van Berkum, J. J., Van den Brink, D., Tesink, C. M., Kos, M., & Hagoort, P. (2008). The neural integration of speaker and message. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(4), 580–591. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2008.20054
   Google Scholar
• Van Rijn, H., Dalenberg, J. R., Borst, J. P., & Sprenger, S. A. (2012). Pupil dilation co-varies with memory strength of individual traces in a delayed response paired-associate task. PloS One, 7(12), 1–8. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051134
   Google Scholar
• Wierda, S. M., van Rijn, H., Taatgen, N. A., & Martens, S. (2012). Pupil dilation deconvolution reveals the dynamics of attention at high temporal resolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(22), 8456–8460. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1201858109
   Google Scholar
• Zellin, M., Pannekamp, A., Toepel, U., & van der Meer, E. (2011). In the eye of the listener: Pupil dilation elucidates discourse processing. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 81(3), 133–141. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.05.009
   Google Scholar