What drives regressions in reading? Insights from surprisal and saliency from language models

A Rego et al.

Cognition2026https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2026.106535article
AJG 4
Weight
0.50

What the paper says

During reading, what makes us regress - i.e., go back in a text instead of going forward? One prevailing view is that regressions reflect comprehension processes, that is, readers selectively regress to retrieve relevant information from text. Here we investigate whether surprisal and saliency derived from large language models can predict the initiation and destination of regressions. Surprisal is a measure of how (un)expected a word is given its context and may be interpreted to reflect the difficulty of integrating the fixated word into the mental representation built from the previously read context. Saliency is a measure of how relevant a word is to the correct prediction of an upcoming word (in this case, the regression origin). Across two English corpora of eye movements and two monolingual large language models, we found that less surprising words were more likely to trigger a regression, while more salient and more surprising words were more likely to be the target of a regression. Our results suggest that readers tend to regress when cognitive load is lower to reactivate linguistic input associated with the regression origin, in favor of the reactivation hypothesis of regressions in reading.

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2026.106535

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{a2026,
  title        = {{What drives regressions in reading? Insights from surprisal and saliency from language models}},
  author       = {A Rego et al.},
  journal      = {Cognition},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2026.106535},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

What drives regressions in reading? Insights from surprisal and saliency from language models

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.