The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
If you say thee uh you are describing something hard: The on-line attribution of disfluency during reference comprehension.
Abstract
Eye-tracking and gating experiments examined reference comprehension with fluent (Click on the red. . .) and disfluent (Click on [pause] thee uh red . . .) instructions while listeners viewed displays with 2 familiar (e.g., ice cream cones) and 2 unfamiliar objects (e.g., squiggly shapes). Disfluent instructions made unfamiliar objects more expected, which influenced listeners' on-line hypotheses from the onset of the color word. The unfamiliarity bias was sharply reduced by instructions that the speaker had object agnosia, and thus difficulty naming familiar objects (Experiment 2), but was not affected by intermittent sources of speaker distraction (beeps and construction noises; Experiments 3). The authors conclude that listeners can make situation-specific inferences about likely sources of disfluency, but there are some limitations to these attributions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue.
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x04000056 · Cited by 2,678
Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking
Clark, H. (2002) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00017-3 · Cited by 1,235
Cited by
What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension?
Kuperberg, G. R., & Jaeger, T. F. (2016) · Language, Cognition and Neuroscience · doi:10.1080/23273798.2015.1102299 · Cited by 1,087
Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density
Florian Jaeger, T. (2010) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.02.002 · Cited by 733
Using the visual world paradigm to study language processing: A review and critical evaluation
Huettig, F., Rommers, J., & Meyer, A. S. (2011) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.11.003 · Cited by 654
Predicting while comprehending language: A theory and review.
Pickering, M. J., & Gambi, C. (2018) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000158 · Cited by 518
The effect of additional characters on choice of referring expression: Everyone counts☆
Arnold, J. E., & Griffin, Z. M. (2007) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2006.09.007 · Cited by 268
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Arnold, J. E., Kam, C. L. H., & Tanenhaus, M. K.
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
- Published
- 2007
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 914-930
- ISSN
- 0278-7393 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1285
- OpenAlex
- W2059100257
- Cited by
- 220
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 3.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: If you say thee uh you are describing something hard: The on-line attribution of disfluency during reference comprehension. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/0278-7393.33.5.914
- The paper
- Arnold, J. E., Kam, C. L. H., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2007). If you say thee uh you are describing something hard: The on-line attribution of disfluency during reference comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.5.914
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.