Eye movement evidence that readers maintain and act on uncertainty about past linguistic input

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 106, Issue 50, 2009, Pages 21086-21090

  Levy, Roger ^a   Bicknell, Klinton ^a   Slattery, Tim ^a   Rayner, Keith ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Language comprehension; Probabilistic models of cognition; Psycholinguistics

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; EYE MOVEMENT; GRAMMAR; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE ABILITY; NEUROTRANSMISSION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; READING; SACCADIC EYE MOVEMENT;

ASSOCIATION LEARNING; CHAMAEMELUM; COMPREHENSION; CONCEPT FORMATION; EYE MOVEMENTS; HUMANS; LINGUISTICS; PERCEPTION; READING; UNCERTAINTY;

EID: 75849154710     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0907664106     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. McClelland JL, Elman JL (1986) The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognit Psychol 18:1-86.
2. Marslen-Wilson WD (1987) Functional parallelism in spoken word recognition. Cognition 25:71-102.
3. Grosjean F (1985) The recognition of words after their acoustic offset: Evidence and implications. Percept Psychophys 38:299-310.
4. Bard EG, Shillcock RC, Altmann GTM (1988) The recognition of words after their acoustic offsets in spontaneous speech: Effects of subsequent context. Percept Psychophys 44:395-408.
5. Warren RM, Warren RP (1970) Auditory illusions and confusions. Sci Am 223:30-36.
6. Connine CM, Blasko DG, Hall M (1991) Effects of subsequent sentence context in auditory word recognition: Temporal and linguistic constraints. J Mem Lang 30:234-250.
7. Dahan D, Tanenhaus MK (2004) Continuous mapping from sound to meaning in spoken-language comprehension: Immediate effects of verb-based thematic constraints. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cognit 30:498-513.
8. McMurray B, Tanenhaus MK, Aslin RN (2009) Within-category VOT affects recovery from "lexical" garden-paths: Evidence against phoneme-level inhibition. J Mem Lang 60:65-91.
9. Fodor JA (1983) The Modularity of Mind (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
10. Jurafsky D (1996) A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognit Sci 20:137-194.
11. Hale J (2001) A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. Proc NAACL 2:159-166.
12. Levy R (2008) Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106:1126-1177.
13. Reichle ED, Pollatsek A, Fisher DL, Rayner K (1998) Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. Psychol Rev 105:125-157.
14. Engbert R, Nuthmann A, Richter EM, Kliegl R (2005) SWIFT: A dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. Psychol Rev 112:777-813.
15. Levy R (2008)Anoisy-channel model of rationalhumansentence comprehension under uncertain input. Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp 234-243.
16. Slattery T (2009) Word misperception, the neighbor frequency effect, and the role of sentence context: An eye movement investigation. J Exp Psychol Hum, in press.
17. Tabor W, Galantucci B, Richardson D (2004) Effects of merely local syntactic coherence on sentence processing. J Mem Lang 50:355-370.
18. Gibson E (2006) The interaction of top-down and bottom-up statistics in the resolution of syntactic category ambiguity. J Mem Lang 54:363-388.
19. Van Dyke JA (2007) Interference effects from grammatically unavailable constituents during sentence processing. J Exp Psychol Learn 33:407-430.
20. Bever T (1970) The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. Cognition and the Development of Language, ed Hayes J (Wiley, New York), pp 279-362.
21. Konieczny L (2005) The psychological reality of local coherences in sentence processing. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, eds Bara BG, Barsalou L, Bucciarelli M, (Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Inc. Mahwah, NJ), pp 1178-1183.
22. Frazier L, Fodor JD (1978) The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition 6:291-325.
23. Tanenhaus MK, Spivey-Knowlton MJ, Eberhard K, Sedivy JC (1995) Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science 268:1632-1634.
24. Altmann GT, Kamide Y (1999) Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition 73:247-264.
25. Staub A, Clifton C (2006) Syntactic prediction in language comprehension: Evidence from either ... or. J Exp Psychol Learn 32:425-436.
26. MacDonald MC (1994) Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Lang Cognit Processes 9:157-201.
27. Spivey MJ, Tanenhaus MK(1998) Syntactic ambiguity resolution in discourse: Modeling the effects of referential content and lexical frequency. J Exp Psychol Learn 24:1521-1543.
28. McRae K, Spivey-Knowlton MJ, Tanenhaus MK (1998) Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on-line sentence comprehension. J Mem Lang 38:283-312.
29. Narayanan S, Jurafsky D (2002) A Bayesian model predicts human parse preference and reading time in sentence processing. Adv Neural Information Processing Syst 14:59-65.
30. Cover T, Thomas J (1991) Elements of Information Theory (Wiley, New York).
31. Kucera H, Francis WN (1967) Computational Analysis of Present-Day American English (Brown Univ Press, Providence, RI).
32. Marcus MP, Santorini B, Marcinkiewicz MA (1994) Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Comput Linguist 19:313-330.
33. Rayner K (1998) Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychol Bull 124:372-422.
34. Legge GE, Klitz TS, Tjan BS (1997) Mr. Chips: An ideal-observer model of reading. Psychol Rev 104:524-553.
35. Najemnik J, Geisler WS (2005) Optimal eye movement strategies in visual search. Nature 434:387-391.
36. Griffiths TL, Tenenbaum JB (2006) Optimal predictions in everyday cognition. Psychol Sci 17:767-773.
37. Stracuzzi D, Kinsey J (2009) Eyetrack Software for the SR Eyelink II and Eyelink 1000, Version 0.7.10k (University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA).
38. Baayen RH, Davidson DJ, Bates DM (2008) Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. J Mem Lang 59:390-412.
39. Bates D (2005) Fitting linear mixed models in R. R News 5:27-30.