A rational model of eye movement control in reading

ACL 2010 - 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 1168-1178

  Bicknell, Klinton ^a   Levy, Roger ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGGREGATE MEASURES; BAYESIAN INFERENCE; COMPUTATIONAL MODEL; EYE MOVEMENT CONTROL; EYE-TRACKING; LINGUISTIC INFORMATION; RATIONAL BEHAVIOR; RATIONAL MODELS; REAL TIME; VISUAL INFORMATION;

AGGREGATES; BAYESIAN NETWORKS; COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; INFERENCE ENGINES;

EYE MOVEMENTS;

EID: 82055197556     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (36)

1. Allauzen, C., Riley, M., Schalkwyk, J., Skut, W., & Mohri, M. (2007). OpenFst: A general and efficient weighted finite-state transducer library. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Implementation and Application of Automata, (CIAA 2007) (Vol. 4783, p. 11-23). Springer.
2. Bicknell, K., & Levy, R. (2010). Rational eye movements in reading combining uncertainty about previous words with contextual probability. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
3. Boston, M. F., Hale, J. T., Kliegl, R., Patil, U., & Vasishth, S. (2008). Parsing costs as predictors of reading difficulty: An evaluation using the potsdam sentence corpus. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 2(1), 1-12.
4. Connine, C. M., Blasko, D. G., & Hall, M. (1991). Effects of subsequent sentence context in auditory word recognition: Temporal and linguistic constraints. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 234-250.
5. Demberg, V., & Keller, F. (2008). Data from eyetracking corpora as evidence for theories of syntactic processing complexity. Cognition, 109, 193-210.
6. Ehrlich, S. F., & Rayner, K. (1981). Contextual effects on word perception and eye movements during reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 641-655.
7. Engbert, R., & Krügel, A. (2010). Readers use Bayesian estimation for eye movement control. Psychological Science, 21, 366-371.
8. Engbert, R., Longtin, A., & Kliegl, R. (2002). A dynamical model of saccade generation in reading based on spatially distributed lexical processing. Vision Research, 42, 621-636.
9. Engbert, R., Nuthmann, A., Richter, E. M., & Kliegl, R. (2005). SWIFT: A dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. Psychological Review, 112, 777-813.
10. Engel, G. R., Dougherty, W. G., & Jones, B. G. (1973). Correlation and letter recognition. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 27, 317-326.
11. Genzel, D., & Charniak, E. (2002, July). Entropy rate constancy in text. In Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 199-206). Philadelphia: Association for Computational Linguistics.
12. Genzel, D., & Charniak, E. (2003). Variation of entropy and parse trees of sentences as a function of the sentence number. In M. Collins & M. Steedman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 65-72). Sapporo, Japan: Association for Computational Linguistics.
13. Geyer, L. H. (1977). Recognition and confusion of the lowercase alphabet. Perception & Psychophysics, 22, 487-490.
14. Hale, J. (2001). A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. In Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Vol. 2, pp. 159-166). New Brunswick, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.
15. Jaeger, T. F. (2010). Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.02.002.
16. Jurafsky, D. (1996). A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science, 20, 137-194.
17. Keller, F. (2004). The entropy rate principle as a predictor of processing effort: An evaluation against eye-tracking data. In D. Lin & D. Wu (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 317-324). Barcelona, Spain: Association for Computational Linguistics.
18. Legge, G. E., Hooven, T. A., Klitz, T. S., Mansfield, J. S., & Tjan, B. S. (2002). Mr. Chips 2002: new insights from an ideal-observer model of reading. Vision Research, 42, 2219-2234.
19. Legge, G. E., Klitz, T. S., & Tjan, B. S. (1997). Mr. Chips: an Ideal-Observer model of reading. Psychological Review, 104, 524-553.
20. Levy, R. (2008). A noisy-channel model of rational human sentence comprehension under uncertain input. In Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 234-243). Honolulu, Hawaii: Association for Computational Linguistics.
21. Levy, R., Bicknell, K., Slattery, T., & Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movement evidence that readers maintain and act on uncertainty about past linguistic input. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 21086-21090.
22. Levy, R., & Jaeger, T. F. (2007). Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. In B. Schölkopf, J. Platt, & T. Hoffman (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 19 (pp. 849-856). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23. Levy, R., Reali, F., & Griffiths, T. L. (2009). Modeling the effects of memory on human online sentence processing with particle filters. In D. Koller, D. Schuurmans, Y. Bengio, & L. Bottou (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 21 (pp. 937-944).
24. Mohri, M. (1997). Finite-state transducers in language and speech processing. Computational Linguistics, 23, 269-311.
25. Narayanan, S., & Jurafsky, D. (2001). A Bayesian model predicts human parse preference and reading time in sentence processing. In T. Dietterich, S. Becker, & Z. Ghahramani (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 14 (pp. 59-65). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26. Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. (2000). PEGASUS: A policy search method for large MDPs and POMDPs. In Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Proceedings of the Sixteenth Conference (pp. 406-415).
27. Norris, D. (2006). The Bayesian reader: Explaining word recognition as an optimal Bayesian decision process. Psychological Review, 113, 327-357.
28. Norris, D. (2009). Putting it all together: A unified account of word recognition and reaction-time distributions. Psychological Review, 116, 207-219.
29. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372-422.
30. Reichle, E. D., & Laurent, P. A. (2006). Using reinforcement learning to understand the emergence of "intelligent" eye-movement behavior during reading. Psychological Review, 113, 390-408.
31. Reichle, E. D., Pollatsek, A., Fisher, D. L., & Rayner, K. (1998). Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. Psychological Review, 105, 125-157.
32. Reichle, E. D., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (2006). E-Z Reader: A cognitive-control, serialattention model of eye-movement behavior during reading. Cognitive Systems Research, 7, 4-22.
33. Reichle, E. D., Warren, T., & McConnell, K. (2009). Using E-Z Reader to model the effects of higher level language processing on eye movements during reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 1-21.
34. Schilling, H. E. H., Rayner, K., & Chumbley, J. I. (1998). Comparing naming, lexical decision, and eye fixation times: Word frequency effects and individual differences. Memory & Cognition, 26, 1270-1281.
35. Smith, N. J., & Levy, R. (2008). Optimal processing times in reading: a formal model and empirical investigation. In B. C. Love, K. McRae, & V. M. Sloutsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 595-600). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
36. Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 1632-1634.