Rational integration of noisy evidence and prior semantic expectations in sentence interpretation

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

Volumn 110, Issue 20, 2013, Pages 8051-8056

  Gibson, Edward ^a   Bergen, Leon ^a   Piantadosi, Steven T ^b  

^a MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Communication; Psycholinguistics; Rational inference

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; COMPREHENSION; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; LINGUISTICS; NOISE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEMANTICS;

COMMUNICATION; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; RATIONAL INFERENCE;

BAYES THEOREM; COGNITION; COMMUNICATION; COMPREHENSION; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SEMANTICS;

EID: 84877862479     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1216438110     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Frazier L, Fodor JD (1978) The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition 6(4):291-325.
2. Gibson E (1991) A computational theory of human linguistic processing: Memory limitations and processing breakdown. PhD thesis (Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh).
3. Gibson E (1998) Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68(1):1-76. (Pubitemid 128424124)
4. Jurafsky D (1996) A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cogn Sci 20:137-194. (Pubitemid 126171392)
5. Hale J (2001) A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. Proc NAACL 2: 159-166.
6. Levy R (2008) Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106(3):1126-1177. (Pubitemid 351172229)
7. Shannon C (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 27: 623-656.
8. Jelinek F (1976) Continuous speech recognition by statistical methods. Proc IEEE 64: 532-556. (Pubitemid 8019230)
9. Aylett M, Turk A (2004) The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: A functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence, and duration in spontaneous speech. Lang Speech 47(Pt 1):31-56. (Pubitemid 39015925)
10. Clayards M, Tanenhaus MK, Aslin RN, Jacobs RA (2008) Perception of speech reflects optimal use of probabilistic speech cues. Cognition 108(3):804-809.
11. Dilley LC, Pitt MA (2010) Altering context speech rate can cause words to appear or disappear. Psychol Sci 21(11):1664-1670.
12. Bates E, McDonald JL, MacWhinney BM, Appelbaum M (1991) A maximum likelihood procedure for the analysis of group and individual data in aphasia research. Brain Lang 40(2):231-265.
13. MacWhinney B, Osmán-Sági J, Slobin DI (1991) Sentence comprehension in aphasia in two clear case-marking languages. Brain Lang 41(2):234-249.
14. Blackwell A, Bates E (1995) Inducing agrammatic profiles in normals: Evidence for the selective vulnerability of morphology under cognitive resource limitation. J Cogn Neurosci 7(2):228-257.
15. Ferreira F, Bailey KGD, Ferraro V (2002) Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 11(1):11-15.
16. Ferreira F, Christianson K, Hollingworth A (2001) Misinterpretations of garden-path sentences: Implications for models of sentence processing and reanalysis. J Psycholinguist Res 30(1):3-20. (Pubitemid 33750778)
17. Levy R (2008) A noisy-channel model of rational human sentence comprehension under uncertain input. Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA), pp 234-243.
18. Levy R, Bicknell K, Slattery T, Rayner K (2009) Eye movement evidence that readers maintain and act on uncertainty about past linguistic input. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106(50):21086-21090.
19. Levy R (2011) Integrating surprisal and uncertain-input models in online sentence comprehension: Formal techniques and empirical results. Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Association for Computational Linguistics, Portland, OR), pp 1055-1065.
20. Marr D (1982) Vision (Freeman, New York).
21. Geisler WS (1989) Sequential ideal-observer analysis of visual discriminations. Psychol Rev 96(2):267-314.
22. Geisler WS, Diehl RL (2003) A Bayesian approach to the evolution of perceptual and cognitive systems. Cogn Sci 27:379-402. (Pubitemid 36598414)
23. Levin B (1993) English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation (Univ of Chicago Press, Chicago).
24. Xu F, Tenenbaum JB (2007) Word learning as Bayesian inference. Psychol Rev 114(2): 245-272.
25. MacKay DJC (2003) Information Theory, Inference and Learning Algorithms (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK).
26. Levenshtein V (1966) Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Sov Phys Dokl 10:707-710.
27. Trueswell JC, Tanenhaus MK, Garnsey SM (1994) Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic disambiguation. J Mem Lang 33(3):285-318.
28. Tanenhaus MK, Spivey-Knowlton MJ, Eberhard KM, Sedivy JC (1995) Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science 268(5217):1632-1634.
29. MacWhinney B, Bates E, Kliegl R (1984) Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German, and Italian. J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav 23(2):127-150.
30. Ferreira F (2003) The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognit Psychol 47(2):164-203. (Pubitemid 37041618)
31. Kutas M, Hillyard SA (1980) Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science 207(4427):203-205. (Pubitemid 10141432)
32. Osterhout L, Holcomb PJ (1992) Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. J Mem Lang 31(6):785-806.
33. Hagoort P, Brown C, Groothusen J (1993) The syntactic positive shift as an ERP measure of sentence processing. Lang Cogn Process 8(4):439-483.
34. Kuperberg GR, Caplan D, Sitnikova T, Eddy M, Holcomb P (2006) Neural correlates of processing syntactic, semantic and thematic relationships in sentences. Lang Cogn Process 21(5):489-530. (Pubitemid 44122914)
35. Kim A, Osterhout L (2005) The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. J Mem Lang 52(2):205-225. (Pubitemid 40233696)
36. Kuperberg GR (2007) Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Res 1146:23-49. (Pubitemid 46553801)
37. Münte TF, Heinze HJ, Matzke M, Wieringa BM, Johannes S (1998) Brain potentials and syntactic violations revisited: No evidence for specificity of the syntactic positive shift. Neuropsychologia 36(3):217-226. (Pubitemid 28209952)
38. Coulson S, King JW, Kutas M (1998) Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Lang Cogn Process 13(1):21-58.
39. van Herten M, Chwilla DJ, Kolk HHJ (2006) When heuristics clash with parsing routines: ERP evidence for conflict monitoring in sentence perception. J Cogn Neurosci 18(7):1181-1197. (Pubitemid 44066121)
40. Osterhout L, Mobley LA (1995) Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. J Mem Lang 34(6):739-773.
41. Yamada Y, Neville HJ (2007) An ERP study of syntactic processing in English and nonsense sentences. Brain Res 1130(1):167-180. (Pubitemid 46053887)
42. Kolk HHJ, Chwilla DJ, van Herten M, Oor PJW (2003) Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain Lang 85(1):1-36. (Pubitemid 36390142)
43. Anderson JR, Schooler LJ (1991) Reflections of the environment in memory. Psychol Sci 2(6):396-408.
44. Chater N, Oaksford M (1999) Ten years of the rational analysis of cognition. Trends Cogn Sci 3(2):57-65. (Pubitemid 29099879)
45. Frank MC, Tily H, Arnon I, Goldwater S (2010) Beyond transitional probabilities: Human learners impose a parsimony bias in statistical word segmentation. Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society (Portland, OR), pp 760-765.
46. Gibson E, Fedorenko E (2013) The need for quantitative methods in syntax and semantics research. Lang Cogn Process 28(1-2):88-124.
47. Munro R, et al. (2010) Crowdsourcing and language studies: The new generation of linguistic data. Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 Workshop on Creating Speech and Language Data with Amazon's Mechanical Turk (Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA), pp 122-130.