Age-related changes in patients with upper limb thalidomide embryopathy in the United Kingdom.

We report the  long-term upper limb disability, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), functional impairment, self-perception of appearance and prevalence of neuropathic pain in patients with upper limb thalidomide embryopathy in the United Kingdom. One-hundred and twenty-seven patients responded to our electronic questionnaire. Mean Quick Version of the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score was 54.

What is retained about common ground? Distinct effects of linguistic and visual co-presence.

Common ground can be mutually established between conversational partners in several ways. We examined whether the modality (visual or linguistic) with which speakers share information with their conversational partners results in memory traces that affect subsequent references addressed to a particular partner. In 32 triads, directors arranged a set of tangram cards with one matcher and then with another, but in different modalities, sharing some cards only linguistically (by describing cards the matcher couldn't see), some only visually (by silently showing them), some both linguistically and visually, and others not at all.

Brains in dialogue: decoding neural preparation of speaking to a conversational partner.

In dialogue, language processing is adapted to the conversational partner. We hypothesize that the brain facilitates partner-adapted language processing through preparatory neural configurations (task sets) that are tailored to the conversational partner. In this experiment, we measured neural activity with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) while healthy participants in the scanner (a) engaged in a verbal communication task with a conversational partner outside of the scanner, or (b) spoke outside of a conversational context (to test the microphone).

The Role of Metarepresentation in the Production and Resolution of Referring Expressions.

In this paper we consider the potential role of metarepresentation-the representation of another representation, or as commonly considered within cognitive science, the mental representation of another individual's knowledge and beliefs-in mediating definite reference and common ground in conversation. Using dialogues from a referential communication study in which speakers conversed in succession with two different addressees, we highlight ways in which interlocutors work together to successfully refer to objects, and achieve shared conceptualizations. We briefly review accounts of how such shared conceptualizations could be represented in memory, from simple associations between label and referent, to "triple co-presence" representations that track interlocutors in an episode of referring, to more elaborate metarepresentations that invoke theory of mind, mutual knowledge, or a model of a conversational partner.

Language in dialogue: when confederates might be hazardous to your data.

Experiments that aim to model language processing in spoken dialogue contexts often use confederates as speakers or addressees. However, the decision of whether to use a confederate, and of precisely how to deploy one, is shaped by researchers' explicit theories and implicit assumptions about the nature of dialogue. When can a confederate fulfill the role of conversational partner without changing the nature of the dialogue itself? We survey the benefits and risks of using confederates in studies of language in dialogue contexts, identifying four concerns that appear to guide how confederates are deployed.

Coordinating spatial referencing using shared gaze.

To better understand the problem of referencing a location in space under time pressure, we had two remotely located partners (A, B) attempt to locate and reach consensus on a sniper target, which appeared randomly in the windows of buildings in a pseudorealistic city scene. The partners were able to communicate using speech alone (shared voice), gaze cursors alone (shared gaze), or both. In the shared-gaze conditions, a gaze cursor representing Partner A's eye position was superimposed over Partner B's search display and vice versa.

Partner-specific adaptation in dialog.

No one denies that people adapt what they say and how they interpret what is said to them, depending on their interactive partners. What is controversial is when and how they do so. Several psycholinguistics research programs have found what appear to be failures to adapt to partners in the early moments of processing and have used this evidence to argue for modularity in the language processing architecture, claiming that the system cannot take into account a partner's distinct needs or knowledge early in processing.

First impressions and last resorts: how listeners adjust to speaker variability.

Perceptual theories must explain how perceivers extract meaningful information from a continuously variable physical signal. In the case of speech, the puzzle is that little reliable acoustic invariance seems to exist. We tested the hypothesis that speech-perception processes recover invariants not about the signal, but rather about the source that produced the signal.

Collaborative recall in face-to-face and electronic groups.

When people remember shared experiences, the amount they recall as a collaborating group is less than the amount obtained by pooling their individual memories. We tested the hypothesis that reduced group productivity can be attributed, at least in part, to content filtering, where information is omitted from group products either because individuals fail to retrieve it or choose to withhold it (self-filtering), or because groups reject or fail to incorporate it (group-filtering). Three-person groups viewed a movie clip together and recalled it, first individually, then in face-to-face or electronic groups, and finally individually again.

Two steps forward, one step back: Partner-specific effects in a psychology of dialogue.

Pickering & Garrod's (P&G's) call to study language processing in dialogue context is an appealing one. Their interactive alignment model is ambitious, aiming to explain the converging behavior of dialogue partners via both intra- and interpersonal priming. However, they ignore the flexible, partner-specific processing demonstrated by some recent dialogue studies.

Accommodating variation: dialects, idiolects, and speech processing.

Listeners are faced with enormous variation in pronunciation, yet they rarely have difficulty understanding speech. Although much research has been devoted to figuring out how listeners deal with variability, virtually none (outside of sociolinguistics) has focused on the source of the variation itself. The current experiments explore whether different kinds of variation lead to different cognitive and behavioral adjustments.

Coordinating cognition: the costs and benefits of shared gaze during collaborative search.

Collaboration has its benefits, but coordination has its costs. We explored the potential for remotely located pairs of people to collaborate during visual search, using shared gaze and speech. Pairs of searchers wearing eyetrackers jointly performed an O-in-Qs search task alone, or in one of three collaboration conditions: shared gaze (with one searcher seeing a gaze-cursor indicating where the other was looking, and vice versa), shared-voice (by speaking to each other), and shared-gaze-plus-voice (by using both gaze-cursors and speech).

Prosodic disambiguation of syntactic structure: for the speaker or for the addressee?

Evidence has been mixed on whether speakers spontaneously and reliably produce prosodic cues that resolve syntactic ambiguities. And when speakers do produce such cues, it is unclear whether they do so "for" their addressees (the audience design hypothesis) or "for" themselves, as a by-product of planning and articulating utterances. Three experiments addressed these issues.

Addressees' needs influence speakers' early syntactic choices.

A current debate in psycholinguistics concerns how speakers take addressees' knowledge or needs into account during the packaging of utterances. In retelling stories, speakers are more likely to mention atypical instruments than easily inferrable, typical instruments; in a seminal study, Brown and Dell (1987) suggested that this is not an adjustment to addressees but is simply easiest for speakers. They concluded that manipulating addressees' knowledge did not affect speakers' mention of instruments.