Modeling the effects of memory on human online sentence processing with particle filters

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 21 - Proceedings of the 2008 Conference

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 937-944

  Levy, Roger ^a   Reali, Florencia ^b   Griffiths, Thomas L ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BANDPASS FILTERS; SYNTACTICS;

CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION; INPUT LENGTHS; LANGUAGE COMPREHENSIONS; NATURAL LANGUAGE PARSING; PARTICLE FILTER; PROBABILISTICS; PSYCHOLINGUISTIC MODELS; RUNTIMES; SENTENCE PROCESSING; SUPERLINEAR;

MONTE CARLO METHODS;

EID: 84858769769     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (29)

1. C. D. Manning and H. Schütze. Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. MIT Press, 1999.
2. D. Jurafsky and J. H. Martin. Speech and Language Processing: An Introduction to Natural Language Processing, Computational Linguistics, and Speech Recognition. Prentice-Hall, second edition, 2008.
3. D. Jurafsky. Probabilistic modeling in psycholinguistics: Linguistic comprehension and production. In Rens Bod, Jennifer Hay, and Stefanie Jannedy, editors, Probabilistic Linguistics, pages 39-95. MIT Press, 2003.
4. M. K. Tanenhaus, M. J. Spivey-Knowlton, K. Eberhard, and J. C. Sedivy. Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268:1632-1634, 1995.
5. G. T. Altmann and Y. Kamide. Incremental interpretation at verbs: restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73(3):247-264, 1999.
6. D. Jurafsky. A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science, 20(2):137-194, 1996. (Pubitemid 126171392)
7. N. Chater,M. Crocker, andM. Pickering. The rational analysis of inquiry: The case for parsing. InM. Oaksford and N. Chater, editors, Rational models of cognition. Oxford, 1998.
8. J. Hale. A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. In Proceedings of NAACL, volume 2, pages 159-166, 2001.
9. R. Levy. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106:1126-1177, 2008. (Pubitemid 351172229)
10. J. Earley. An efficient context-free parsing algorithm. Communications of the ACM, 13(2):94-102, 1970.
11. A. Stolcke. An efficient probabilistic context-free parsing algorithm that computes prefix probabilities. Computational Linguistics, 21(2):165-201, 1995.
12. M.-J. Nederhof. The computational complexity of the correct-prefix property for TAGs. Computational Linguistics, 25(3):345-360, 1999.
13. L. Huang and D. Chiang. Better k-best parsing. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Parsing Technologies, 2005.
14. M. Johnson, T. L. Griffiths, and S. Goldwater. Bayesian inference for PCFGs via Markov chain Monte Carlo. In Proceedings of Human Language Technologies 2007: The Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2007.
15. W. Tabor and S. Hutchins. Evidence for self-organized sentence processing: Digging in effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(2):431-450, 2004. (Pubitemid 38317886)
16. B. Roark. Probabilistic top-down parsing and language modeling. Computational Linguistics, 27(2):249-276, 2001. (Pubitemid 33597448)
17. M. Collins and B. Roark. Incremental parsing with the perceptron algorithm. In Proceedings of the ACL, 2004.
18. J. Henderson. Lookahead in deterministic left-corner parsing. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Incremental Parsing: Bringing Engineering and Cognition Together, 2004.
19. A. Doucet, N. de Freitas, and N. Gordon, editors. Sequential Monte Carlo Methods in Practice. Springer, 2001.
20. A. N. Sanborn, T. L. Griffiths, and D. J. Navarro. A more rational model of categorization. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Mahwah, NJ, 2006. Erlbaum.
21. N. Daw and A. Courville. The pigeon as particle filter. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 20, Cambridge, MA, 2008. MIT Press.
22. A. Doucet, N. de Freitas, K.Murphy, and S. Russell. Rao-Blackwellised particle filtering for dynamic Bayesian networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2000.
23. N. Smith and R. Levy. Optimal processing times in reading: a formal model and empirical investigation. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 2008.
24. M. C. MacDonald. Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9(2):157-201, 1994.
25. M. J. Spivey and M. K. Tanenhaus. Syntactic ambiguity resolution in discourse: Modeling the effects of referential content and lexical frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24(6):1521-1543, 1998. (Pubitemid 126528696)
26. L. Frazier and K. Rayner. Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14:178-210, 1982.
27. F. Ferreira and J. M. Henderson. Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 31:725-745, 1991.
28. N. Chopin. A sequential particle filter method for static models. Biometrika, 89:539-552, 2002.
29. P. Sturt, M. J. Pickering, and M. W. Crocker. Structural change and reanalysis difficulty in language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 40:143-150, 1999.