Florian Hintz

Presentations

Displaying 1 - 6 of 6
  • Hintz, F. (2022). Mechanisms underlying native and non-native spoken-word recognition in noise [invited talk]. Talk presented at the School of Human and Behavioural Sciences Seminar series at Bangor University. Bangor (UK). 2022-04-06.
  • Hintz, F. (2022). Individual differences in language skills [invited talk]. Talk presented at the LangSci Talk Series organized by SFB 1102 at Saarland University. Saarbruecken, Germany. 2022-04-28.
  • Hintz, F., Voeten, C. C., McQueen, J. M., & Meyer, A. S. (2022). Quantifying the relationships between linguistic experience, general cognitive skills and linguistic processing skills. Talk presented at the 44th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2022). Toronto, Canada. 2022-07-27 - 2022-07-30.
  • Hintz, F., McQueen, J. M., & Meyer, A. S. (2022). The principal dimensions of speaking and listening skills. Talk presented at the 22nd Conference of the European Society for Cognitive Psychology (ESCOP 2022). Lille, France. 2022-08-29 - 2022-09-01.
  • Takashima, A., Hintz, F., McQueen, J. M., Meyer, A. S., & Hagoort, P. (2022). The neuronal underpinnings of variability in language skills. Talk presented at the 22nd Conference of the European Society for Cognitive Psychology (ESCOP 2022). Lille, France. 2022-08-29 - 2022-09-01.
  • Hintz, F., & Meyer, A. S. (2013). Prediction and production of simple mathematical equations. Poster presented at the 18th Conference of the European Society for Cognitive Psychology (ESCOP 2013), Budapest, Hungary.

    Abstract

    An important issue in current psycholinguistics is the relationship between the production and comprehension systems. It has been argued that these systems are tightly linked, and that, in particular, listeners use the speech production system to predict upcoming content. We tested this view using a novel version of the visual world paradigm. Participants heard mathematical equations and looked at a clock face showing the numbers 1 to 12. On alternating trials they either heard a complete equation (3+8=11) or they heard the first part (3+8) and had to produce the solution (11, target hereafter) themselves. Participants were encouraged to look at the relevant numbers throughout the trial. On listening trials, the participants typically looked at the target before the onset of target name, and on speaking trials they typically looked at the target before naming it. However, the timing of the looks to the targets was slightly different, with participants looking earlier at the target when they had to speak themselves than when they listened. This suggests that predicting during listening and planning to speak are indeed very similar but not identical. The further methodological and theoretical consequences of the study will be discussed.

Share this page