Why are computational models oftext comprehension useful?

Higher Level Language Processes in the Brain: Inference and Comprehension Processes

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 27-52

  Goldman, Susan R ^a   Golden, Richard M ^b   Paul Van Den, Broek ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT DALLAS   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 42149124695     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203936443     Document Type: Chapter

References (72)

1. Carletta, J. (1996). Assessing agreement on classification tasks: The kappa statistic. Computational Linguistics, 22,250-254.
2. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psy-chological Measurements, 20, 20,37-46.
3. Dennis, S. (2004). An unsupervised method for the extraction of propositional infor-mation from text. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101, 5206-5213.
4. Dennis, S., & Kintsch, W. (2007). The Text Mapping and Inference Rule Generation Problems in Text Comprehension: Evaluating a Memory-Based Account. In F. Schmalhofer & C. A. Perfetti (Eds.), Higher Level Language Processes in the Brain: Inference and Comprehension Processes (pp. 105-132). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
5. Diller, D. E., Nobel, P. A., & Shiffrin, R. M. (2001). An ARC-REM model for accuracy and response time in recognition and recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 414-435.
6. Dunn, J. C., Almeida, O. P, Barclay, L., Waterreus, A., & Flicker, L. (2002). Latent semantic analysis: A new method to measure prose recall. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 24(1), 26-35.
7. Durbin, M. A., Earwood, J., & Golden, R. M. (2000). Hidden Markov models for coding story recall data. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Cognitive Science Society Con-ference (pp. 113-118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9. Fletcher, C. R. (1994). Levels of representation in memory for discourse. In M. A. Gerns-bacher (Ed), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 589-607). San Diego: Academic.
10. Fletcher, C. R., van den Broek, P, & Arthur, E. J. (1996). A model of narrative comprehension and recall. In B. K. Britton and A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Models of understanding text (pp. 141-163). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11. Foltz, P. W., Kintsch, W., & Landauer, T. K. (1998). The measurement of textual Coherence with Latent Semantic Analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 285-307.
12. Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13. Ghiasinejad, S., & Golden, R. M. (2002, June). An empirical evaluation of the AUTOCODER system for automatic semantic coding of children summarization data. Poster presented at the 12th Annual Meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse. Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, IL.
14. Gildea, D., & Jurafsky, D. (2002). Automatic labeling of semantic roles. Computational Linguistics, 28, 245-288.
15. Gillund, G., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1984). A retrieval model for both recognition and recall. Psychological Review, 91,1-67.
16. Goldman, S. R., & Varma, S. (1995). CAPping the construction-integration model of discourse comprehension. In C. A. Weaver, S. Mannes, & C. R. Fletcher (Eds.), Discourse comprehension: Essays in honor of Walter Kintsch (pp. 337-358). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17. Goldman, S. R., Varma, S., & Cote, N. (1996). Extending capacity-constrained con-struction integration: Toward “smarter” and flexible models of text comprehen-sion. In B. K. Britton & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Models of text comprehension (pp. 73-113). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18. Goldman, S., & Varnhagen, C. (1986). Memory for embedded and sequential story structures. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 401-418.
19. Gough, P. (1972). One second of reading. In J. F. Kavanaugh & I. G. Mattingly (Eds.), Language by ear and by eye: The relationships between speech and reading (pp. 331-358). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 95,163-182.
21. Guha, A., & Rossi, J. P. (2001). Convergence of the integration dynamics of the construction-integration model. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 45, 355-369.
22. Haberlandt, K., & Graesser, A. C. (1985). Component processes in text comprehension and some of their interations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 357-374.
23. Hintzman, D. L. (1988). Judgments of frequency and recognition memory in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review, 95, 528-551.
24. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99,122-149.
25. Kahneman, D., & Miller, D. T. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alterna-tives. Psychological Review, 93,136-153.
26. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). The simulation heuristic. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 201-208). New York: Cambridge University Press.
27. Keefe, D. E., & McDaniel, M. A. (1993). The time course and durability of predictive inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 446-463.
28. Kintsch, E. (1990). Macroprocesses and microprocesses in the development of sum-marization skill. Cognition and Instruction, 7,161-195.
29. Kintsch, W. (1974). The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
30. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construc-tion-integration model. Psychological Review, 95,163-182.
31. Kintsch, W. (1998). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95,163-182.
32. Kintsch, W. (2001). Predication. Cognitive Science, 25,173-202.
33. Kintsch, W., Britton, B. B., Fletcher, C. R., Kintsch, E., Marines, S. M., and Nathan, M. J. (1993). A comprehension-based approach to learning and understanding. In D. Medin (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 30, pp. 165-214). New York: Academic Press.
34. Kintsch, W., & Greeno, J. (1985). Understanding and solving word arithmetic prob-lems. Psychological Review, 92,109-129.
35. Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.
36. Kintsch, W., & Welsch, D. M. (1991). The construction-integration model: A framework for studying memory for text. In. W. Hockley & S. Lewandowsky (Eds.), Relating theory and data: Essays on human memory in honor of Bennet B. Murdock (pp. 367-386). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
37. Kintsch, W., Welsch, D. M., Schmalhofer, F., & Zimny, S. (1990). Sentence memory: Theoretical analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 29,133-159.
38. Landauer, T. K., Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato&s problem: The Latent Semantic Analysis theory of acquisition, induction and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104,211-240.
39. Langston, M., & Trabasso, T. (1999). Modeling causal integration and availability of information during comprehension of narrative texts. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 29-69). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
40. Langston, M. C., Trabasso, T., & Magliano, J. P. (1999). Modeling on-line comprehension. In A. Ram and K. Moorman (Eds.), Understanding language understanding: Computational models of reading (pp. 181-225). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41. Linderholm, T., Virtue, S., Tzeng, Y., & van den Broek, P. (2004). Fluctuations in the availability of information during reading: Capturing cognitive processes using the landscape model. Discourse Processes, 37(2), 165-186.
42. Lutz, M. F., & Radvansky, G. A. (1997). The fate of completed goal information in narrative comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 29,469-492.
43. McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1985). Distributed memory and the representation of general and specific information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114,159-188.
44. McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99, 440-466.
45. McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1995). The minimalist hypothesis: Directions for research. In In C. A. Weaver, S. Marines, & C. R. Fletcher (Eds.), Discourse comprehension: Essays in honor of Walter Kintsch (pp. 97-116). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
46. McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14,1-43.
47. Miller, J. R., & Kintsch, W. (1980). Readability and recall of short prose passages: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 6,335-354.
48. Murdock, B. B. (1982). A theory for the storage and retrieval of item and associative information. Psychological Review, 89, 609-626.
49. Myers, J. L., & Obrien, E. J. (1998). Accessing the discourse representation during reading. Discourse Processes, 26,131-157.
50. Obrien, E. J., & Albrecht, J. E. (1992). Comprehension strategies in the development of a mental model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 777-784.
51. Obrien, E. J., Plewes, S., & Albrecht, J. E. (1990). Antecedent retrieval processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 346-352.
52. Perrig, W., & Kintsch, W. (1985). Propositional and situational representations of text. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 503-519.
53. Raajmakers, J. G. W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1981). Search of associative memory. Psychological Review, 88, 93-134.
54. Rumelhart, D. E., Hinton, G. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1986). A general framework for parallel distributed processing. In D. E. Rumelhart, J. L. McClelland, & the PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition: Vol. 1. Foundations (pp. 45-76). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
55. Schmalhofer, F., & Glavanov, D. (1986). Three components of understanding a pro-grammer&s manual: Verbatim, propositional, and situation representations. Jour-nal of Memory and Language, 25,279-294.
56. Schmalhofer, F., McDaniel, M. A., & Keefe, D. (2002). A unified model of predictive and bridging inferences. Discourse Processes, 33,105-132.
57. Shiffrin, R. M., & Steyvers, M. (1997). A model for recognition memory: REM: Re-trieving effectively from memory. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 4(2), 145-166.
58. Singer, M., & Kintsch, W. (2001). Text retrieval: A theoretical exploration. Discourse Processes, 31,27-59.
59. Spilich, G. J., Vesonder, G. T., Chiesi, H. L., & Voss, J. F. (1979). Text processing of domain-related information for individuals with high and low domain knowl-edge. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 275-290.
60. Tapiero, I., & Denhiere, G. (1995). Simulating recall and recognition by using Kintsch&s construction-integration model. In C. A. Weaver, S. Mannes, & C. R. Fletcher (Eds.), Discourse comprehension: Essays in honor of Walter Kintsch (pp. 211-232). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
61. Trabasso, T., & Bartolone, J. (2003). Story understanding and counterfactual reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 904-923.
62. Trabasso, T., Secco, T., & van den Broek, R (1984). Causal cohesion and story coherence. In H. Mandl, N. L. Stein, & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Learning and comprehension of text (pp. 83-111).
63. Van Den Broek, P. (1990). The causal inference maker: Towards a process model of inference generation in text comprehension. In D. A. Balota, G. B. d&Arcais, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 423-445). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
64. Van Den Broek, P., Lorch, R. F., Jr., Linderholm, T., & Gustafson, M. (2001). The effects of readers goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory and Cognition, 29,1081-1087.
65. Van Den Broek, P, Risden, K., Fletcher, C. R., & Thurlow, R. (1996). A “landscape” view of reading: Fluctuating patterns of activations and the construction of a stable memory representation. In. B. K. Britton & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Models of understanding text (pp. 165-187). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
66. Van Den Broek, R, Risden, K., & Husebye-Hartman, E. (1995). The role of readers standards for coherence in the generation of inferences during reading. In R. F. Lorch, Jr., & E. J. Obrien (Eds.), Sources of coherence in text comprehension (pp. 353-373). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
67. Van den Broek, R, Young, M., Tzeng, Y., & Linderholm, T. (1998). The landscape model of reading: Inferences and the on-line construction of a memory representation. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental represen-tations during reading (pp. 71-98). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
68. Van Dijk, T., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Aca-demic Press.
69. Vuong, Q. H. (1989). Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and nonnested hy-potheses. Econometrica, 57, 307-333.
70. Wolfe, M. B. W., & Goldman, S. R. (2003). Use of latent semantic analysis for predicting psychological phenomena: Two issues and proposed solutions. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35(1), 22-32.
71. Zimny, S. T. (1987). Recognition memory for sentence from a discourse. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder.
72. Zwaan, R. A., Magliano, J. R, & Graesser, A. C. (1995). Dimensions of situation-model construction in narrative comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 386-397.