# Event Knowledge Modulates Real‐Time Mental Representations of Object State‐Change

## TL;DR

This study shows how real-world knowledge and sentence structure influence how people mentally represent object changes in real-time.

## Contribution

It reveals that real-world event knowledge affects mental representations of object state changes in both completed and ongoing events.

## Key findings

- Real-world knowledge about state-change likelihood influences mental models during comprehension of both perfective and imperfective sentences.
- Perfective aspect increases accessibility of both initial and end states of objects compared to imperfective aspect.
- Linguistic cues and real-world knowledge jointly guide dynamic updates of object state representations in real-time.

## Abstract

The present study examines how real‐world event knowledge and grammatical aspect guide event comprehension. Specifically, we tested whether real‐world knowledge about the likelihood of state‐change (e.g., wine glasses usually crack when dropped but plastic cups do not) modulates the object state representations that people construct while reading perfective and imperfective sentences. Participants read “rebus” sentences in perfective and imperfective aspect, presented one word at a time, self‐paced. In each sentence, the object was replaced by an image of the object that is either likely or unlikely to undergo state‐change (e.g., Carlos was dropping/dropped a *wine glass*/*plastic cup* …), depicted in their initial (intact) or end (changed) states. Reaction times to images indicate that real‐world knowledge about the likelihood of state‐change is recruited when comprehenders construct mental models of events described as completed (perfective aspect, e.g., dropped) as well as events described as ongoing (imperfective aspect, e.g., was dropping). Results also indicate that perfective aspect increases the accessibility of both the initial and end states of objects, compared to imperfective aspect. Overall, these results demonstrate that both non‐linguistic information grounded in real‐world event knowledge as well as linguistic cues about the temporal structure of events guide how comprehenders dynamically update mental representations of object states in real‐time.