The Effect of Surprisal on Reading Times in Information Seeking and Repeated Reading
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The effect of surprisal on processing difficulty has been a central topic of investigation in psycholinguistics. Here, we use eyetracking data to examine three language processing regimes that are common in daily life but have not been addressed with respect to this question: information seeking, repeated processing, and the combination of the two. Using standard regime-agnostic surprisal estimates we find that the prediction of surprisal theory regarding the presence of a linear effect of surprisal on processing times, extends to these regimes. However, when using surprisal estimates from regime-specific contexts that match the contexts and tasks given to humans, we find that in information seeking, such estimates do not improve the predictive power of processing times compared to standard surprisals. Further, regime-specific contexts yield near zero surprisal estimates with no predictive power for processing times in repeated reading. These findings point to misalignments of task and memory representations between humans and current language models, and question the extent to which such models can be used for estimating cognitively relevant quantities. We further discuss theoretical challenges posed by these results.
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 10 Oct 2024.
Builds on
0 of 0 references.
No references here yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 3; 2026: 4.
8 papers.
- 2025To model human linguistic prediction, make LLMs less superhumancited by 11
- 2024Large-scale cloze evaluation reveals that token prediction tasks are neither lexically nor semantically alignedcited by 4
- 2025A Spatio-Temporal Point Process for Fine-Grained Modeling of Reading Behaviorcited by 2
- 2026On the Proper Treatment of Units in Surprisal Theorycited by 2
- 2025Eye Tracking Based Cognitive Evaluation of Automatic Readability Assessment Methodscited by 1
- 2026On the scaling relationship between cloze probabilities and language model next-token predictioncited by 0
- 2026Readers make targeted regressions to plausible errors in reanalysis of "noisy-channel garden-path" sentencescited by 0
- 2026Do Cantonese-Adapted Language Models Better Predict Cantonese Reading? A Cross-Model Eye-Tracking Evaluationcited by 0
- 2026Do Cantonese-Adapted Language Models Better Predict Cantonese Reading? A Cross-Model Eye-Tracking Evaluation2 Sep 2026
- 2026Readers make targeted regressions to plausible errors in reanalysis of "noisy-channel garden-path" sentences18 May 2026
- 2026On the Proper Treatment of Units in Surprisal Theory30 Apr 2026
- 2026On the scaling relationship between cloze probabilities and language model next-token prediction19 Feb 2026
- 2025To model human linguistic prediction, make LLMs less superhuman1 Oct 2025
- 2025A Spatio-Temporal Point Process for Fine-Grained Modeling of Reading Behavior24 Jun 2025
- 2025Eye Tracking Based Cognitive Evaluation of Automatic Readability Assessment Methods16 Feb 2025
- 2024Large-scale cloze evaluation reveals that token prediction tasks are neither lexically nor semantically aligned15 Oct 2024