Human Attention during Goal-directed Reading Comprehension Relies on Task Optimization

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This manuscript describes a set of four passage-reading experiments which are paired with computational modeling to evaluate how task-optimization might modulate attention during reading. Broadly, participants show faster reading and modulated eye-movement patterns of short passages when given a preview of a question they will be asked. The attention weights of a Transformer-based neural network (BERT and variants) show a statistically reliable fit to these reading patterns above-and-beyond text- and semantic-similarity baseline metrics, as well as a recurrent-network-based baseline. Reading strategies are modulated when questions are not previewed, and when participants are L1 versus L2 readers, and these patterns are also statistically tracked by the same transformer-based network.

I should note that I served as a reviewer on an earlier version of this manuscript at a different venue. I had an overall positive view of the paper at that point, and the same opinion holds here as well.

Strengths:

- Task-optimization is a key notion in current models of reading and the current effort provides a computationally rigorous account of how such task effects might be modeled
- Multiple experiments provide reasonable effort towards generalization across readers and different reading scenarios
- Use of RNN-based baseline, text-based features, and semantic features provides a useful baseline for comparing Transformer-based models like BERT

Weaknesses:

- Generalization across neural network models seems, to me, somewhat limited: The transformer-based models differ from baseline models in numerous ways (model size, training data, scoring algorithm); it is thus not clear what properties of these models necessarily supports their fit to human reading patterns.
- Inferential statistics are based on a series of linear regressions, but these differ markedly in model size (BERT models involve 144 attention-based regressor, while the RNN-based model uses just 1 attention-based regressor). How are improvements in model fit balanced against changes in model size? Also, it was not clear to me how participant-level variance was accounted for in the modeling effort (mixed-effects regression?) These questions may well be easily remedied by more complete reporting.
- Experiment 1 was paired with a relatively comprehensive discussion of how attention weights mapped to reading times, but the same sort of analysis was not reported for Exps 2-4; this seems like a missed opportunity given the broader interest in testing how reading strategies might change across the different parameters of the four experiments.
- Comparison of predictive power of BERT weights to human annotations of text relevance is limited: The annotation task asked participants to chose the 5 "most relevant" words for a given question; if >5 words carried utility in answering a question, this would not be captured by the annotation. It seems to me that the improvement of BERT over human annotations discussed around page 10-11 could well be due to this arbitrary limitation of the annotations.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this study, researchers aim to understand the computational principles behind attention allocation in goal-directed reading tasks. They explore how deep neural networks (DNNs) optimized for reading tasks can predict reading time and attention distribution. The findings show that attention weights in transformer-based DNNs predict reading time for each word. Eye tracking reveals that readers focus on basic text features and question-relevant information during initial reading and rereading, respectively. Attention weights in shallow and deep DNN layers are separately influenced by text features and question relevance. Additionally, when readers read without a specific question in mind, DNNs optimized for word prediction tasks can predict their reading time. Based on these findings, the authors suggest that attention in real-world reading can be understood as a result of task optimization.

The research question pursued by the study is interesting and important. The manuscript was well written and enjoyable to read. However, I do have some concerns.

1. In the first paragraph of the manuscript, it appears that the purpose of the study was to test the optimization hypothesis in natural tasks. However, the cited papers mainly focus on covert visual attention, while the present study primarily focuses on overt attention (eye movements). It is crucial to clearly distinguish between these two types of attention and state that the study mainly focuses on overt attention at the beginning of the manuscript.

2. The manuscript correctly describes attention in DNN as a mechanism to selectively extract useful information. However, eye-movement measures such as gaze duration and total reading time are primarily influenced by the time needed to process words. Therefore, there is a doubt whether the argument stating that attention in DNN is conceptually similar to the human attention mechanism at the computational level is correct. It is strongly suggested that the authors thoroughly discuss whether these concepts describe the same or different things.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This paper presents several eyetracking experiments measuring task-directed reading behavior where subjects read texts and answered questions.
It then models the measured reading times using attention patterns derived from deep-neural network models from the natural language processing literature.
Results are taken to support the theoretical claim that human reading reflects task-optimized attention allocation.

Strengths:

1. The paper leverages modern machine learning to model a high-level behavioral task (reading comprehension). While the claim that human attention reflects optimal behavior is not new, the paper considers a substantially more high-level task in comparison to prior work. The paper leverages recent models from the NLP literature which are known to provide strong performance on such question-answering tasks, and is methodologically well grounded in the NLP literature.

2. The modeling uses text- and question-based features in addition to DNNs, specifically evaluates relevant effects, and compares vanilla pretrained and task-finetuned models. This makes the results more transparent and helps assess the contributions of task optimization. In particular, besides fine-tuned DNNs, the role of the task is further established by directly modeling the question relevance of each word. Specifically, the claim that human reading is predicted better by task-optimized attention distributions rests on (i) a role of question relevance in influencing reading in Expts 1-2 but not 4, and (ii) the fact that fine-tuned DNNs improve prediction of gaze in Expts 1-2 but not 4.

3. The paper conducts experiments on both L2 and L1 speakers.

Weaknesses:

1. The paper aims to show that human gaze is predicted the the DNN-derived task-optimal attention distribution, but the paper does not actually derive a task-optimal attention distribution. Rather, the DNNs are used to extract 144 different attention distributions, which are then put into a regression with coefficients fitted to predict human attention. As a consequence, the model has 144 free parameters without apparent a-priori constraint or theoretical interpretation. In this sense, there is a slight mismatch between what the modeling aims to establish and what it actually does.

2. While Experiment 1 tests questions from different types in blocks, and the paper mentions that this might encourage the development of question-type-specific reading strategies -- indeed, this specifically motivates Experiment 2, and is confirmed indirectly in the comparison of the effects found in the two experiments ("all these results indicated that the readers developed question-type-specific strategies in Experiment 1") -- the paper seems to miss the opportunity to also test whether DNNs fine-tuned for each of the question-types predict specifically the reading times on the respective question types in Experiment 1. Testing not only whether DNN-derived features can differentially predict normal reading vs targeted reading, but also different targeted reading tasks, would be a strong test of the approach.

3. The paper compares the DNN-derived features to word-related features such as frequency and surprisal and reports that the DNN features are predictive even when the others are regressed out (Figure S3). However, these features are operationalized in a way that puts them at an unfair disadvantage when compared to the DNNs: word frequency is estimated from the BNC corpus; surprisal is derived from the same corpus and derived using a trigram model. The BNC corpus contains 100 Million words, whereas BERT was trained on several Billions of words. Relatedly, trigram models are now far surpassed by DNN-based language models. Specifically, it is known that such models do not fit human eyetracking reading times as well as modern DNN-based models (e.g., Figure 2 Dundee in: Wilcox et al, On the Predictive Power of Neural Language Models for Human Real-Time Comprehension Behavior, CogSci 2020). This means that the predictive power of the word-related features is likely to be underestimated and that some residual predictive power is contained in the DNNs, which may implicitly compute quantities related to frequency and surprisal, but were trained on more data. In order to establish that the DNN models are predictive over and above word-related features, and to reliably quantify the predictive power gained by this, the authors could draw on (1) frequency estimated from the corpora used for BERT (BookCorpus + Wikipedia), (2) either train a strong DNN language model, or simply estimate surprisal from a strong off-the-shelf model such as GPT-2.

This concern does not fundamentally cast doubt on the conclusions, since the authors found a clear effect of the task relevance of individual words, which by definition is not contained in those baseline models. However, Figure S3 -- specifically Figure S3C -- is likely to inflate the contribution of the DNN model over and above the text-based features.

The results broadly support the conclusions; however, with the qualification that the paper provides a somewhat indirect test, by testing DNN-derived features without deriving a single task-optimized attention distribution for each task.

The data are likely to be useful as a benchmark in further modeling of eye-movements, an area of interest to computational research on psycholinguistics.
The modeling results contribute to theoretical understanding of human reading behavior, and strengthens a line of research arguing that it reflects task-adaptive behavior.

The theoretical claim, and some basic features of the research, are quite similar to other recent work (Hahn and Keller, Modeling task effects in human reading with neural network-based attention, Cognition, 2023; cited with very little discussion as ref 44), which also considered task-directed reading in a question-answering task and derived task-optimized attention distributions. There are various differences, and the paper under consideration has both weaknesses and strengths when compared to that existing work -- e.g., that paper derived a single attention distribution from task optimization, but the paper under consideration provides more detailed qualitative analysis of the task effects, uses questions requiring more high-level reasoning, and uses more state-of-the-art DNNs.