PROTOCOL OF SCOPE REVIEW

1. TITLE

The use of eye-tracker/pupillometry in the investigation of the relationship between prosody

perception and the processing of spoken discourse structure: a scope review.

2. PROTOCOL INFORMATIONS

Authors: Arthur Ronald Brasil Terto1, Alice Roberta de Lima Oliveira Melo1, Eliel de Melo
Araújo Costa1, Miguel Oliveira Jr.1
1
College of Languages, Federal University of Alagoas, Brazil.

Corresponding author: Arthur Ronald Brasil Terto.

E-mail address: arthur.terto@fale.ufal.br
Phone number: +55 82 9 9914-8783
Address: Faculdade de Letras. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Linguística e Literatura.
Universidade Federal de Alagoas, Maceió, AL, Brasil. Avenida Lourival Melo Mota, s/n -
Tabuleiro dos Martins, Maceió/AL, Brasil.

Dates:

Research start: January 2023.

Conclusion prevision: April 2023.
Review submitted for publication: April 2023.

3. INTRODUCTION

Systematic study on the characteristics of spoken text has revealed that prosody serves
as a defining element of oral discourse structure. Research has shown that oral discourse can be
segmented into semantically independent sections, demarcated by prosodic boundaries, which
are composed of elements such as pauses, changes in intonation, and intensity (Grosz &
Hirschberg, 1992; Oliveira Jr., 2000; Passonneau & Litman, 1997; Swerts, 1996; Swerts &
Geluykens, 1994). These elements work together to allow listeners to perceive the discursive
units that make up the entirety of the discourse.
One study by Oliveira Jr. (2000) analyzed spontaneous oral narratives and found that
acoustic elements such as fundamental frequency variation (F0), intensity, speech rate, and
pauses function as prosodic mechanisms that demarcate discursive units in oral language.
However, it is important to note that any study on speech prosody must consider the validity of
the phenomenon from a perception perspective.
This scope review proposal posits that prosody acts as a structuring and segmenting
element of speech, revealing to listeners the structuring of oral discourse into smaller discursive
units. In the field of speech processing, there are two types of research methods in
psycholinguistics: offline and online methods. Offline methods in linguistic studies of
perception only allow for inferences about speech processing as they do not track and visualize
the exact processing time of the target stimulus. In contrast, online methods allow for such
tracking, as judgments and psychoneuromotor changes are collected during exposure to the
stimulus.
The use of non-invasive online experimental techniques such as eye tracking and
pupillometry has enabled the detailed investigation of the initial moments of language
processing (Prieto, 2012). The eye tracking technique, for example, allows for the registration
of significant eye movements and measurement of cognitive activity based on these
movements. However, there is a lack of systematic studies in the psycholinguistics literature
that use the eye-tracking/pupillometry technique to investigate the use of prosody in the
processing of spoken oral discourse. Most studies in this area have used offline processing
techniques (De Pijper & Sanderman, 1994; Grosz & Hirschberg, 1992; Passonneau & Litman,
1997; Swerts, Collier, & Terken, 1994; Swerts & Geluykens, 1994).
The main objective of this scope review is to systematically categorize studies that use
the eye tracking/pupillometry technique to investigate the relationship between prosody
perception and the processing of spoken discourse structure, using a set of criteria. At the time
of developing this scoping review protocol, the authors have not found another review with a
similar objective. This protocol was developed using the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting
Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Extension for Scoping Review) guideline.
4. METHODS

This is a scope review proposal, the research protocol of which will be registered on the
Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/) in accordance with the guidelines of the international
PRISMA-ScR guide and the methodologies of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). The review
will follow a five-step process, including: 1) identification of the research question; 2)
identification of relevant studies; 3) selection of studies; 4) data analysis; and 5) synthesis,
grouping, and presentation of results.
The research team will collaborate to establish the research question and inclusion and
exclusion criteria. The Mendeley software will be utilized to facilitate independent analysis of
articles by team members.

4.1 Question Formulation

The specific research question that will be addressed in this review is: "What scientific
evidence is available regarding the use of prosody in processing the spoken discourse structure
using the eye tracking/pupillometry techniques?".

4.2 Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria for studies include primary quantitative research articles published in
English or Portuguese from 1990 to 2023.

4.3 Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria include studies that do not investigate the use of prosody in processing
spoken discourse using eye tracking/pupillometry techniques, as well as narrative and
integrative reviews, monographs, books, internet sources, editorials, essays, duplicate articles,
and articles that are not fully available in databases.
4.4 Databases and search strategy

For the bibliographic survey, the research team will conduct searches in the following
databases: Scopus (Elsevier), Ebscohost (Academic Search Premier), Science Direct, and
Google Scholar, accessed through the Portal de Periódicos Capes. The search will be conducted
using descriptors in both English and Portuguese, utilizing the following syntax: prosody AND
(eye-tracking OR pupillometry) AND segmentation AND "discourse structure", excluding
citations and patents from the databases.

4.5 Initial study selection and evaluation

To ensure a thorough and rigorous selection process, three reviewers will independently
screen the studies and select them based on the titles and abstracts. The reviewers will then
independently read the pre-selected articles in full, more precisely determining their relevance
to the research and whether they meet the inclusion criteria. Any discrepancies between
reviewers will be resolved through discussion and, if necessary, collaboration with a fourth
reviewer to reach consensus. The reasons for excluding each article will be recorded and
documented. Additionally, the reference lists of the selected articles will be examined to
identify any other studies that may meet the inclusion criteria and were not found in the initial
database searches.

4.6 Procedure for data extraction and summarization

To ensure a comprehensive and systematic extraction and synthesis of the essential

elements found in each study, three independent reviewers will use a structured instrument
specifically designed for this study, utilizing Microsoft Excel. The extracted data will include
specific details such as authorship, year and country of publication, research questions,
objectives, methods, main findings, conclusions, and limitations. This information will be
organized and compiled into a table for ease of analysis and comparison.

5. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
 The authors declare that there are not any conflicts of interest.

REFERENCES

DE PIJPER, J. R.; SANDERMAN, A. (1994). On the perceptual strength of prosodic

boundaries and its relation to suprasegmental cues. J. Acoust. Soc. Am, v. 96, n. 4, p. 2037–
2047.

GROSZ, B.; HIRSCHBERG, J. Some intonational characteristics of discourse structure.

Anais... In: 2nd International Conference On Spoken Language Processing. Banff: 1992.

OLIVEIRA, M., Jr. Prosodic Features in Spontaneous Narratives. Vancouver: Simon

Fraser University, 2000.

PASSONNEAU, R. J.; LITMAN, D. J. Discourse Segmentation by Human and Automated

Means. Computational linguistics, v. 23, n. 1, p. 103–139, 1997.
SWERTS, M. (1996). Prosodic features at discourse boundaries of different strength. The
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, v. 101, n. 1, p. 514–521.

SWERTS, M.; GELUYKENS, R. (1994). Prosody as a marker of information flow in spoken

discourse. Language and Speech, v. 37, n. 1, p. 21–43.

SWERTS, M.; COLLIER, R.; TERKEN, J. (1994). Prosodic predictors of discourse finality in
spontaneous monologues. Speech Communication, v. 15, n. 1-2, p. 79–90.