Optimizing LSA Measures of Cohesion

Handbook of Latent Semantic Analysis

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 379-400

  McNamara, Danielle S ^a   Cai, Zhiqiang ^a   Louwerse, Max M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84875624752     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203936399-27     Document Type: Chapter

References (29)

1. Brill, E. (1995). Transformation-based error-driven learning and natural language processing:Acase study in part-of-speech tagging. Computational Linguistics, 21, 543-566.
2. Britton, B. K., andGulgoz, S. (1991). Using Kintsch’s computational model to improve instructional text: Effects of repairing inference calls on recall and cognitive structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 329-345.
3. Coltheart, M. (1981). TheMRCpsycholinguistic database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33, 497-505.
4. Deerwester, S., Dumais, S. T., Furnas, G.W., Landauer, T. K., andHarshman, R. (1990). Indexing by latent semantic analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41, 391-407.
5. Foltz, P.W., Kintsch, W., andLandauer, T.K. (1998). The measurement of textual coherence with latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 285-307.
6. Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7. Givón, T. (1995). Coherence in the text and coherence in the mind. In M. A. Gernsbacher and T. Givón (Eds.), Coherence in spontaneous text (pp. 59-115). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
8. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., and Louwerse, M. M. (2003). What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative and expository text. In A. P. Sweet and C. E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 82-98). New York: Guilford.
9. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., and Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 193-202.
10. Graesser, A. C., Robertson, S. E., andAnderson, P. A. (1981). Incorporating inferences in narrative representations:Astudy ofhowandwhy. CognitivePsychology, 13, 1-26.
11. Graesser, A., Wiemer-Hastings, P., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Harter, D., Person, N., and the Tutoring Research Group. (2000). Using latent semantic analysis to evaluate the contributions of students in AutoTutor. Interactive Learning Environments, 8, 149-169.
12. Kintsch, W. (1995). How readers construct situation models for stories: The role of syntactic cues and causal inferences. In M. A. GernsbacherandT. Givón, Coherence in spontaneous text (pp.139-160). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
13. Landauer, T. K., and Dumais, S. T. (1997). Asolution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211-240.
14. Landauer, T. K., Laham, D., and Foltz, P.W. (2003). Automated essay scoring and annotation of essays with the intelligent essay assessor. In M. D. Shermis and J. C. Burstein (Eds.), Automated Essay Scoring: A Cross Disciplinary Perspective (pp. 87-112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15. Louwerse, M. M. (2002). Computational retrieval of themes. In M. M. Louwerse and W. van Peer (Eds.), Thematics: Interdisciplinary studies (pp. 189-212). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
16. Louwerse, M. M. (2004). Semantic variation in idiolect and sociolect: Corpus linguistic evidence from literary texts. Computers and the Humanities, 38, 207-221.
17. Louwerse, M. M. (2005). Un modelo conciso de cohesion en el texto y coherencia en la comprehension [Aconcise model of cohesion in text and coherence in comprehension]. Revista Signos, 37, 41-58.
18. Louwerse, M. M., and Graesser, A. C. (2005). Coherence in discourse. In P. Strazny (Ed.), Encyclopedia of linguistics (pp. 216-218). Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn.
19. Louwerse, M. M., McCarthy, P. M., McNamara, D. S., andGraesser, A.C. (2004). Variation in language and cohesion across written and spoken registers. In K. D. Forbus, D. Gentner, andT. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 843-848). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20. McNamara, D. S. (2001). Reading both high and low coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 51-62.
21. McNamara, D. S., and Healy, A. F. (2000). Aprocedural explanation of the generation effect for simple and difficult multiplication problems and answers. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 652-679.
22. McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., and 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.
23. McNamara, D. S., and Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from text: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247-287.
24. McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., andGraesser, A. C. (2002). Coh-Metrix: Automated cohesion and coherence scores to predict text readability and facilitate comprehension. Technical report, Institute for Intelligent Systems, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN.
25. Miller, G. A., Beckwith, R., Fellbaum, C., Gross, D., and Miller, K. (1990). Introduction to WordNet: An on-line lexical database. Journal of Lexicography, 3, 234-244.
26. Sekine, S., and Grishman, R. (1995). Acorpus-based probabilistic grammar with only two nonterminals. Proceedings of the Fourth InternationalWorkshop on Parsing Technology, 216-223.
27. Shapiro, A. M., and McNamara, D. S. (2000). The use of latent semantic analysis as a tool for the quantitative assessment of understanding and knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22, 1-36.
28. Van Dijk, T. A., and Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
29. Zwaan, R. A., andRadvansky, G.A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162-185.