Alignment as a consequence of expectation adaptation: Syntactic priming is affected by the prime's prediction error given both prior and recent experience

Cognition

Volumn 127, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 57-83

  Jaeger, T Florian ^a,b   Snider, Neal E ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER   (United States)

^b University of Rochester   (United States)

^c NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS   (United States)

Author keywords

Adaptation; Alignment; Implicit learning; Prediction error; Structural persistence; Surprisal; Syntactic priming

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; ARTICLE; COGNITION; COMMUNICATION SKILL; HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; LEARNING; NERVOUS SYSTEM PARAMETERS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPEECH; SYNTACTIC PRIMING;

ADAPTATION, PSYCHOLOGICAL; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; PROBABILITY; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; REPETITION PRIMING; SPEECH; VERBAL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 84872818153     PISSN: 00100277     EISSN: 18737838     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.10.013     Document Type: Article

References (142)

1. Alexandre J.D. Modeling implicit and explicit processes in recursive sequence structure learning. The 32nd annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci10) 2010, Cognitive Science Society., Austin, TX. S. Ohlsson, R. Catrambone (Eds.).
2. Altmann G., Kamide Y. Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition 1999, 73(3):247-264.
3. Altmann E., Pierrehumbert J., Motter A. Beyond word frequency: Bursts, lulls, and scaling in the temporal distributions of words. PLoS One 2009, 4(11):e7678.
4. Anderson J. Rules of the mind 1993, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
5. Anderson J., Bothell D., Byrne M., Douglass S., Lebiere C., Qin Y. An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review 2004, 111(4):10-36.
6. Anderson J., Milson R. Human memory: An adaptive perspective. Psychological Review 1989, 96(4):703-719.
7. Anderson J., Schooler L. Reflections of the environment in memory. Psychological Science 1991, 2(6):396.
8. Arai M., van Gompel R., Scheepers C. Priming ditransitive structures in comprehension. Cognitive Psychology 2007, 54(3):218-250.
9. Arnold J.E., Wasow T., Losongco T., Ginstrom R. Heaviness vs.newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 2000, 76(1):28-55.
10. Aylett M.P., Turk A. The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: A functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence, and duration in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech 2004, 47(1):31-56.
11. Bard E., Robertson D., Sorace A. Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language 1996, 32-68.
12. Bernolet S., Hartsuiker R. Does verb bias modulate syntactic priming?. Cognition 2010, 114(3):455-461.
13. Bock J.K. Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 1986, 18:355-387.
14. Bock J.K., Dell G.S., Chang F., Onishi K.H. Persistent structural priming from language comprehension to language production. Cognition 2007, 104(3):437-458.
15. Bock J.K., Griffin Z.M. The persistence of structural priming: Transient activation or implicit learning?. Journal of Experimental Psychology 2000, 129(2):177-192.
16. Bock J.K., Warren R.K. Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation. Cognition 1985, 21(1):47-67.
17. Boston M., Hale J., Kliegl R., Patil U., Vasishth S. Parsing costs as predictors of reading difficulty: An evaluation using the potsdam sentence corpus. Journal of Eye Movement Research 2008, 2(1):1-12.
18. Botvinick M., Plaut D. Doing without schema hierarchies: A recurrent connectionist approach to normal and impaired routine sequential action. Psychological Review 2004, 111(2):395-429.
19. Bradlow A., Bent T. Perceptual adaptation to non-native speech. Cognition 2008, 106(2):707-729.
20. Branigan H., Pickering M., Cleland A. Syntactic priming in written production: Evidence for rapid decay. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 1999, 6(4):635-640.
21. Branigan H., Pickering M., Stewart A., McLean J. Syntactic priming in spoken production: Linguistic and temporal interference. Memory & Cognition 2000, 28(8):1297-1302.
22. Brennan S., Clark H. Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1996, 22(6):1482.
23. Bresnan J., Cueni A., Nikitina T., Baayen R.H. Predicting the dative alternation. Cognitive foundations of interpretation 2007, 69-94. Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschapen, Amsterdam. G. Bouma, I. KrSmer, J. Zwarts (Eds.).
24. Brown M., Savova V., Gibson E. Syntax encodes information structure: Evidence from online reading comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 2012, 66:194-209.
25. Brown-Schmidt S., Tanenhaus M. Priming and alignment: Mechanism or consequence?. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2004, 27(2):193-194.
26. Butler L., Jaeger T.F., Bohnemeyer J., Furth K. Learning to express visual contrasts in the production of referring expressions in yucatec maya. Proceedings of the CogSci workshop on the Production of Referring Expressions: Bridging the gap between computational, empirical and theoretical approaches to reference (PRE-CogSci 2011) 2011, Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX. K. van Deemter, A. Gatt, R. van Gompel, E. Krahmer (Eds.).
27. Chang F., Dell G.S., Bock J.K. Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review 2006, 113(2):234-272.
28. Chang F., Dell G.S., Bock J.K., Griffin Z.M. Structural priming as implicit learning: A comparison of models of sentence production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2000, 29(2):217-230.
29. Chang F., Janciauskas M., Fitz H. Language adaptation and learning: Getting explicit about implicit learning. Language and Linguistics Compass 2012, 6(5):259-278.
30. Clark H. Using language 1996, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
31. Clark, A. (in press). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
32. Clarkson, P., & Robinson, A. (1997). Language model adaptation using mixtures and an exponentially decaying cache. In Proceedings of the 1997 international conference of acoustics, speech, and signal processing (Vol. 1, pp. 799-802). Munich, Germany.
33. Clayards M., Tanenhaus M., Aslin R., Jacobs R. Perception of speech reflects optimal use of probabilistic speech cues. Cognition 2008, 108(3):804-809.
34. Courville A.C., Daw N.D., Touretzky D.S. Bayesian theories of conditioning in a changing world. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2006, 10(7):294-300. .
35. Dayan P., Yu P. ACh, uncertainty, and cortical inference. Advances in neural information processing systems (NIPS) 2001, Vol. 14:189-196. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
36. Dell G., Oppenheim G., Kittredge A. Saying the right word at the right time: Syntagmatic and paradigmatic interference in sentence production. Language and Cognitive Processes 2008, 23(4):583-608.
37. DeLong K.A., Urbach T.P., Kutas M. Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience 2005, 8(8):1117.
38. Demberg V., Keller F. Data from eye-tracking corpora as evidence for theories of syntactic processing complexity. Cognition 2008, 109(2):193-210.
39. Dubey A., Keller F., Sturt P. A probabilistic corpus-based model of syntactic parallelism. Cognition 2008, 109(3):326-344.
40. Eisner F., McQueen J. The specificity of perceptual learning in speech processing. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 2005, 67(2):224-238.
41. Elman J. Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science 1990, 14(2):179-211.
42. Farmer T., Monaghan P., Misyak J.B., Christiansen M.H. Phonological typicality influences sentence processing in predictive contexts: A reply to Staub et al. (2009). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2011, 37:1318-1325.
43. Ferreira V.S. The persistence of optional complementizer mention: Why saying a "that" is not saying "that" at all. Journal of Memory and Language 2003, 48:379-398.
44. Ferreira V.S. Ambiguity, accessibility, and a division of labor for communicative success. Learning and Motivation 2008, 49:209-246.
45. Ferreira V., Bock K. The functions of structural priming. Language and Cognitive Processes 2006, 21(7-8):1011-1029.
46. Ferreira V., Bock K., Wilson M., Cohen N. Memory for syntax despite amnesia. Psychological Science 2008, 19(9):940.
47. Ferreira V.S., Kleinman D., Kraljic T., Siu Y. Do priming effects in dialogue reflect partner-or task-based expectations?. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2011, 1-8.
48. Fine, A. B., & Jaeger, T. F. (in press). Evidence for implicit learning in syntactic comprehension. Cognitive Science.
49. Fine, A. B., Qian, T., Jaeger, T. F., & Jacobs, R. (2010). Is there syntactic adaptation in language comprehension? In Proceedings of the 48th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL): Workshop on cognitive modeling and computational linguistics. Uppsala, Sweden.
50. Fine, A. B., Jaeger, T. F., Farmer, T., & Qian, T. (submitted for publication). Rapid expectation adaptation during syntactic comprehension.
51. Finegan E., Biber D. Register variation and social dialect variation: The register axiom. Style and sociolinguistic variation 2001, 235-267. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. P. Eckert, J. Rickford (Eds.).
52. Fine A.B., Jaeger T.F. Language comprehension is sensitive to changes in the reliability of lexical cues. The 33rd annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci11) 2011, 925-930. Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX. L. Carlson, C. Hoelscher, T. Shipley (Eds.).
53. Frank, A. (2010). Integrating linguistic, motor, and perceptual information in language production. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Rochester.
54. Frank S., Bod R. Insensitivity of the human sentence-processing system to hierarchical structure. Psychological Science 2011, 22(6):829-834.
55. Frank A., Jaeger T.F. Speaking rationally: Uniform information density as an optimal strategy for language production. The 30th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci08) 2008, 939-944. Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX. B.C. Love, K. McRae, V.M. Sloutsky (Eds.).
56. Garnsey S.M., Pearlmutter N.J., Meyers E., Lotocky M.A. The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 1997, 37:58-93.
57. Godfrey, J., Holliman, E., & McDaniel, J. (1992). Switchboard: Telephone speech corpus for research and development. In Proceedings of the 1992 international conference on acoustics, speech, and signal processing (ICASSP-92) (Vol. 1, pp. 517-520).
58. Gries S.T. Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2005, 34(4):365-399.
59. Guenther F. Speech sound acquisition, coarticulation, and rate effects in a neural network model of speech production. Psychological Review 1995, 102(3):594.
60. Hanuli{dotless}́ková A., van Alphen P., van Goch M., Weber A. When one person's mistake is another's standard usage: The effect of foreign accent on syntactic processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2012, (24):878-887.
61. Hare M., McRae K., Elman J.L. Sense and structure: Meaning as a determinant of verb subcategorization preferences. Journal of Memory and Language 2003, 48(2):281-303.
62. Harrell F.E.J. Regression modeling strategies 2001, Springer-Verlag, Oxford.
63. Hartsuiker R., Bernolet S., Schoonbaert S., Speybroeck S., Vanderelst D. Syntactic priming persists while the lexical boost decays: Evidence from written and spoken dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language 2008, 58(2):214-238.
64. Hartsuiker R., Kolk H. Syntactic persistence in Dutch. Language and Speech 1998, 41(2):143-184.
65. Hartsuiker R., Westenberg C. Word order priming in written and spoken sentence production. Cognition 2000, 75(2):B27-B39.
66. Heller, J., & Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2011). Word burstiness improves models of word reduction in spontaneous speech. In Architectures and mechanisms for language processing (AMLaP 2011). Paris, France.
67. Houde J., Jordan M. Sensorimotor adaptation in speech production. Science 1998, 279(5354):1213-1216.
68. Jaeger, T. F. (2006). Redundancy and syntactic reduction in spontaneous speech. Phd thesis. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
69. Jaeger T.F. Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language 2008, 59(4):434-446.
70. Jaeger T.F. Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology 2010, 61:23-62.
71. Jaeger T.F. Corpus-based research on language production: Information density and reducible subject relatives. Language from a cognitive perspective: Grammar, usage, and processing. studies in honor of tom wasow 2011, 161-197. CSLI Publications, Stanford. E.M. Benders, J.E. Arnold (Eds.).
72. Jaeger T.F., Snider N.E. Implicit learning and syntactic persistence: Surprisal and cumulativity. Proceedings of the 29th annual Cognitive Science Society (CogSci09) 2008, 1061-1066. Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX.
73. Jones J., Munhall K. Remapping auditory-motor representations in voice production. Current Biology 2005, 15(19):1768-1772.
74. Kamide Y., Altmann G., Haywood S. The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 2003, 49(1):133-156.
75. Kamide Y. Learning individual talkers structural preferences. Cognition 2012, 124(1):66-71.
76. Kaschak M. Long-term structural priming affects subsequent patterns of language production. Memory and Cognition 2007, 35(5):925.
77. Kaschak M., Borreggine K. Is long-term structural priming affected by patterns of experience with individual verbs?. Journal of Memory and Language 2008, 58:862-878.
78. Kaschak M., Glenberg A. Interactive alignment: Priming or memory retrieval?. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2004, 27(2):201-202.
79. Kaschak M., Glenberg A. This construction needs learned. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2004, 133(3):450.
80. Kaschak M., Kutta T., Jones J. Structural priming as implicit learning: Cumulative priming effects and individual differences. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2011, 1-7.
81. Kaschak M., Kutta T., Schatschneider C. Long-term cumulative structural priming persists for (at least) one week. Memory & Cognition 2011, 39:381-388.
82. Kaschak M., Loney R., Borreggine K. Recent experience affects the strength of structural priming. Cognition 2006, 99(3):73-82.
83. Kleinschmidt D., Jaeger T.F. A continuum of phonetic adaptation: Evaluating an incremental belief-updating model of recalibration and selective adaptation. Proceedings of the 34th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci12) 2012, 107-115. Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX.
84. Kraljic T., Brennan S., Samuel A. Accommodating variation: Dialects, idiolects, and speech processing. Cognition 2008, 107(1):54-81.
85. Kraljic T., Samuel A. Perceptual adjustments to multiple speakers. Journal of Memory and Language 2007, 56(1):1-15.
86. Levy R. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 2008, 106(3):1126-1177.
87. Levy R., Jaeger T.F. Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. Advances in neural information processing systems (NIPS) 2007, Vol. 19:849-856. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
88. Lewis R., Vasishth S. An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science 2005, 29(3):375-419.
89. MacDonald J.L., Bock J.K., Kelly M.H. Word and world order: Semantic, phonological, and metrical determinants of serial position. Cognitive Psychology 1993, 25(2):188-230.
90. MacDonald M., Christiansen M. Reassessing working memory: Comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and waters and caplan (1996). Psychological Review 2002, 109:35-54.
91. MacDonald M., Pearlmutter N., Seidenberg M. The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review 1994, 101(4):676-703.
92. MacKay D. Information theory, inference, and learning algorithms 2003, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
93. Malhotra, G. (2009). Dynamics of structural priming. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Edinburgh, UK: University of Edinburgh.
94. Maurits L., Perfors A., Navarro D. Why are some word orders more common than others? A uniform information density account. Advances in neural information processing systems (NIPS) 2010, Vol. 23:1585-1593. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
95. Maye J., Aslin R., Tanenhaus M. The weckud wetch of the wast: Lexical adaptation to a novel accent. Cognitive Science 2008, 32(3):543-562.
96. McDonald S., Shillcock R. Eye movements reveal the on-line computation of lexical probabilities during reading. Psychological Science 2003, 14(6):648-652.
97. Norris D., McQueen J. Shortlist B: A Bayesian model of continuous speech recognition. Psychological Review 2008, 115(2):357.
98. Perkell J., Guenther F., Lane H., Matthies M., Stockmann E., Tiede M., et al. The distinctness of speakers productions of vowel contrasts is related to their discrimination of the contrasts. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2004, 116:2338-2344.
99. Pickering, M., & Garrod, S. (in press). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
100. Pickering M., Branigan H.P. The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language 1998, 39:633-651.
101. Pickering M., Branigan H., Cleland A., Stewart A. Activation of syntactic information during language production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2000, 29(2):205-216.
102. Pickering M., Ferreira V.S. Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin 2008, 134(3):427.
103. Pickering M., Garrod S. Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2004, 27(02):169-190.
104. Plaut D., McClelland J., Seidenberg M., Patterson K. Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological Review 1996, 103(1):56-115.
105. Qian T., Jaeger T.F. Cue effectiveness in communicatively efficient discourse production. Cognitive Science 2012, 36(7):1312-1336.
106. Qian T., Jaeger T.F., Aslin R. Learning to represent a multi-context environment: More than detecting changes. Fronties in Psychology 2012, 3:1-9.
107. Rayner K., Duffy S. On-line comprehension processes and eye movements in reading. Reading Research: Advances in Theory and Practice 1988, 13-66.
108. Recchia, G. (2007). Strata: Search tools for richly annotated and time-aligned linguistic data. Undergraduate honors thesis.
109. Reitter D., Keller F., Moore J. A computational cognitive model of syntactic priming. Cognitive Science 2011, 35:587-637.
110. Reitter D., Moore J. Predicting success in dialogue. Proceedings of the 45th annual meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics (ACL) 2007, 808-815. Association for Computational Linguistics, Prague, Czech Republic.
111. Reitter D., Moore J., Keller F. Priming of syntactic rules in task-oriented dialogue and spontaneous conversation. Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci06) 2006, Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX.
112. Rescorla R., Wagner A. A theory of pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. Classical conditioning ii: Current research and theory 1972, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, NY. Black, Prokasy (Eds.).
113. Resnik P. Selectional constraints: An information-theoretic model and its computational realization. Cognition 1996, 61:127-159.
114. Roche, J., Dale,R., & Kreuz, R. (in preparation). Dont rush the navigator: Disambiguating strategies require cognitive flexibility.
115. Rohde, D. (1999). Tgrep2 manual [computer software manual]. http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Tgrep2/tgrep2.pdf.
116. Roland D., Dick F., Elman J. Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: A corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language 2007, 57(3):348-379.
117. Rowland C., Chang F., Ambridge B., Pine J., Lieven E. The development of abstract syntax: Evidence from structural priming and the lexical boost. Cognition 2012, 125(1):49-63.
118. Rumelhart D., Hinton G., Williams R. Learning representations by back-propagating errors. Nature 1986, 323(6088):533-536.
119. Scheepers C. Syntactic priming of relative clause attachments: Persistence of structural configuration in sentence production. Cognition 2003, 89:179-205.
120. Shannon C. A mathematical theory of communications. Bell Systems Technical Journal 1948, 27(4):623-656.
121. Sigley R. The influence of formality and channel on relative pronoun choice in New Zealand English. English Language and Linguistics 1997, 1(2):207-232.
122. Smith N., Levy R. Optimal processing times in reading: A formal model and empirical investigation. The 30th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci08) 2008, 595-600. Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX. B.C. Love, K. McRae, V.M. Sloutsky (Eds.).
123. Snider, N. (2008). An exemplar model of syntactic priming. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
124. Sonderegger M., Yu A. A rational account of perceptual compensation for coarticulation. Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci10) 2010, 375-380. Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX. S. Ohlsson, R. Catrambone (Eds.).
125. Staub A., Clifton C.J. Syntactic prediction in language comprehension: Evidence from either... or. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2006, 32(2):425-436.
126. Szmrecsányi B.M. Language users as creates of habit: A corpus-based analysis of persistence in spoken English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2005, 1:113-149.
127. Tagliamonte S., Smith J. No momentary fancy! The zero in English dialects. English Language and Linguistics 2005, 9(2):289-309.
128. Thothathiri M., Snedeker J. Syntactic priming during language comprehension in three- and four-year-old children. Journal of Memory and Language 2008, 58(2):188-213.
129. Traxler M. Lexically independent priming in online sentence comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2008, 15(1):149-155.
130. Trueswell J.C., Tanenhaus M.K., Kello C. Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1993, 19:528-553.
131. van Linden S., Vroomen J. Recalibration of phonetic categories by lipread speech versus lexical information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2007, 33(6):1483.
132. van Son R.J.J.H., van Santen J.P.H. Duration and spectral balance of intervocalic consonants: A case for efficient communication. Speech Communication 2005, 47(1):100-123.
133. Vroomen J., van Linden S., de Gelder B., Bertelson P. Visual recalibration and selective adaptation in auditory-visual speech perception: Contrasting build-up courses. Neuropsychologia 2007, 45(3):572-577.
134. Warker J., Dell G. Speech errors reflect newly learned phonotactic constraints. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2006, 32(2):387.
135. Wasow T., Jaeger T.F., Orr D. Lexical variation in relativizer frequency. Proceedings of the workshop on expecting the unexpected: Exceptions in grammar at the 27th annual meeting of the German Linguistic Association 2011, 175-196. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York. H. Wiese, H. Simon (Eds.).
136. Weatherholz, K., Campbell-Kibler, K., & Jaeger, T.F. (2012). Syntactic alignment is mediated by social perception and conflict management. In Architectures and mechanisms for language processing (AMLaP 2012). Riva del Garda, Italy.
137. Wei K., Körding K. Relevance of error: What drives motor adaptation?. Journal of Neurophysiology 2009, 101(2):655-664.
138. Weiner E.J., Labov W. Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics 1983, 19:29-58.
139. Wells J., Christiansen M., Race D., Acheson D., MacDonald M. Experience and sentence processing: Statistical learning and relative clause comprehension. Cognitive Psychology 2009, 58(2):250-271.
140. Wolpert D. Computational approaches to motor control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 1997, 1(6):209-216.
141. Wolpert D., Kawato M. Multiple paired forward and inverse models for motor control. Neural Networks 1998, 11(7-8):1317-1329.
142. Yu A., Cohen J. Sequential effects: Superstition or rational behavior?. Advances in neural information processing systems (NIPS) 2008, Vol. 21:1873-1880. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.