Towards a computational model of actor-based language comprehension

Neuroinformatics

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 143-179

  Alday, Phillip M ^a   Schlesewsky, Matthias ^b   Bornkessel Schlesewsky, Ina ^a  

^a PHILIPPS UNIVERSITY MARBURG   (Germany)

^b JOHANNES GUTENBERG UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Actor identification; Ambiguity resolution; Computational model; Emergence; Language processing

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BRAIN; COMPREHENSION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; BRAIN; COMPREHENSION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; MALE; MODELS, NEUROLOGICAL; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84894421855     PISSN: 15392791     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12021-013-9198-x     Document Type: Article

References (109)

1. Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19(6), 716-723. doi:10.1109/TAC.1974. 1100705.
2. Arbib, M.; Bonaiuto, J.; Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I.; Kemmerer, D.; MacWhinney, B.; Nielsen, F.; Oztop, E. (this issue). Action and language mechanisms in the brain: data, models and neuroinformatics. Neuroinformatics.
3. Baayen, R.; Davidson, D.; Bates, D. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390-412.
4. Barr, D. J.; Levy, R.; Scheepers, C.; Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255-278.
5. Basten, U.; Biele, G.; Heekeren, H.; Fiebach, C. (2010). How the brain integrates costs and benefits during decision making. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(50), 21,767-21,772.
6. Bates, D.; Maechler, M.; Bolker, B. (2013). lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4rpackageversion0. 999999-2.
7. Bates, E.; McNew, S.; MacWhinney, B.; Devescovi, A.; Smith, S. (1982). Functional constraints on sentence processing: a cross-linguistic study. Cognition, 11, 245-299.
8. Bates, E.; Devescovi, A.; Wulfeck, B. (2001). Psycholinguistics: a cross-language perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 369-396.
9. Bornkessel, I. (2002). The argument dependency model: a neurocognitive approach to incremental interpretation (Vol. 28). Leipzig: MPI Series in Cognitive Neuroscience.
10. Bornkessel, I.; & Schlesewsky, M. (2006). The extended argument dependency model: a neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychological Review, 113(4), 787-821.
11. Bornkessel, I.; Fiebach, C. J.; Friederici, A. D. (2004a). On the cost of syntactic ambiguity in human language comprehension: an individual differences approach. Cognitive Brain Research, 21, 11-21.
12. Bornkessel, I.; McElree, B.; Schlesewsky, M.; Friederici AD (2004b). Multi-dimensional contributions to garden path strength: dissociating phrase structure from case marking. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 495-522.
13. Bornkessel, I.; Zysset, S.; Friederici, A. D.; von Cramon, D. Y.; Schlesewsky, M. (2005). Who did what to whom? The neural basis of argument hierarchies during language comprehension. Neuroimage, 26(1), 221 - 233.
14. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I.; & Schlesewsky, M. (2008). An alternative perspective on "semantic P600" effects in language comprehension. Brain Research Reviews, 59, 55-73.
15. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I.; & Schlesewsky, M. (2009). The role of prominence information in the real-time comprehension of transitive constructions: a cross-linguistic approach. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 19-58.
16. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I.; & Schlesewsky, M. (2013a). Neurotypology: Modelling cross-linguistic similarities and differences in the neurocognition of language comprehension. In M. Sanz, I. Laka, M.K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), The cognitive and biological basis for linguistic structure: new approaches and enduring themes, (pp. 241-252). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I.; & Schlesewsky, M. (2013b). Reconciling time, space and function: a new dorsal-ventral stream model of sentence comprehension. Brain and Language, 125(1), 60-76. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2013.01. 010.
18. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I.; & Schlesewsky, M. (to appear). Competition in argument interpretation: evidence from the neurobiology of language. In B. MacWhinney, A. Malchukov, E. Moravcsik (Eds.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I.; Kretzschmar, F.; Tune, S.; Wang, L.; Genç, S.; Philipp, M.; Roehm, D.; Schlesewsky, M. (2011). Think globally: cross-linguistic variation in electrophysiological activity during sentence comprehension. Brain and Language, 117(3), 133-152.
20. Bourguignon, N.; Drury, J. E.; Valois, D.; Steinhauer, K. (2012). Decomposing animacy reversals between agents and experiencers: an ERP study. Brain and Language, 122(3), 179-189.
21. Brouwer, H.; Fitz, H.; Hoeks, J. (2012). Getting real about semantic illusions: rethinking the functional role of the P600 in language comprehension. Brain Research, 1446, 127-143.
22. Burnham, K. P.; & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model selection and multi-model inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer.
23. Choudhary, K. K.; Schlesewsky, Bickel, B.; Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2010). An actor-preference in a split-ergative language: electrophysiological evidence from Hindi. In Proceedings from 23rd annual meeting of the cuny conference on human sentence processing. New York City.
24. Coulson, S.; King, J. W.; Kutas M (1998). ERPs and domain specificity: beating a straw horse. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, 653-672.
25. Crocker, M. W. (1994). On the nature of the principle-based sentence processor. In J.C. Clifton, L. Frazier, K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing, (pp. 245-266). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
26. Croft, W. A. (2001). Radical construction grammar: syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27. Dahl, Ö. (2008). Animacy and egophoricity: grammar, ontology and phylogeny. Lingua, 118, 141-150.
28. Deco, G.; Rolls, E. T.; Romo, R. (2009). Stochastic dynamics as a principle of brain function. Progress in Neurobiology, 88(1), 1-16.
29. Deco, G.; Rolls, E. T.; Albantakis, L.; Romo, R. (2012). Brain mechanisms for perceptual and reward-related decision-making. Progress in Neurobiology.
30. DeLong, K. A.; Urbach, T. P.; Kutas, M. (2005). Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience, 8(8), 1117-1121.
31. Demiral, Ş.; Schlesewsky, M.; Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2008). On the universality of language comprehension strategies: evidence from Turkish. Cognition, 106(1), 484-500.
32. DeWitt, I.; & Rauschecker, J. (2012). Phoneme and word recognition in the auditory ventral stream. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, E505-E514.
33. Fausey, C.; & Boroditsky, L. (2011). Who dunnit? Cross-linguistic differences in eye-witness memory. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 18, 150-157.
34. Fausey, C. M.; Long, B. L.; Inamori, A.; Boroditsky, L. (2010). Constructing ageny: the role of language. Frontiers in Psychology, 1(162).
35. Federmeier, K. D. (2007). Thinking ahead: the role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 44, 491-505.
36. Felleman, D.; & Van Essen, D. (1991). Distributed hierarchical processing in the primate cerebral cortex. Cerebral cortex, 1(1), 1-47.
37. Fodor, J. A. (1983). Modularity of mind. An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge: MIT Press.
38. Frazier, L. (1987). Syntactic processing: evidence from dutch. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5, 519-559. doi:10.1007/BF00138988.
39. Frenzel, S.; Schlesewsky, M.; Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2011). Conflicts in language processing: a new perspective on the N400-P600 distinction. Neuropsychologia, 49(3), 574-579.
40. Friederici, A. D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(2), 78-84.
41. Frisch, S.; & Schlesewsky, M. (2001). The N400 reflects problems of thematic hierarchizing. NeuroReport, 12(15), 3391-3394.
42. Frith, U.; & Frith, C. D. (2010). The social brain: allowing humans to boldly go where no other species has been. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 365, 165-176.
43. Grewe, T.; Bornkessel, I.; Zysset, S.; Wiese, R.; von Cramon, D. Y.; Schlesewsky, M. (2006). Linguistic prominence and broca's area: The influence of animacy as a linearization principle. Neuroimage, 32, 1395-1402.
44. Haggard, P. (2008). Human volition: towards a neuroscience of will. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, 934-946.
45. Hagoort, P. (2003). How the brain solves the binding problem for language: a neurocomputational model of syntactic processing. Neuroimage, 20, 18-29.
46. Hagoort, P. (2005). On broca, brain, and binding: a new framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(9), 416-422.
47. Hahne, A.; & Friederici, A. D. (2002). Differential task effects on semantic and syntactic processes as revealed by ERPs. Cognitive Brain Research, 13, 339-356.
48. Haupt, F. S.; Schlesewsky, M.; Roehm, D.; Friederici, A. D.; Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2008). The status of subject-object reanalyses in the language comprehension architecture. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 54-96.
49. Heekeren, H.; Marrett, S.; Bandettini, P.; Ungerleider, L. (2004). A general mechanism for perceptual decision-making in the human brain. Nature, 431(7010), 859-862.
50. Huynh, H.; & Feldt, L. S. (1970). Conditions under which mean square ratios in repeated measurements designs have exact f-distributions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 65(332), 1582-1589.
51. Jonides, J.; Lewis, R.; Nee, D.; Lustig, C. (2008). The mind and brain of short-term memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 193-224.
52. Kempe, V.; & MacWhinney, B. (1999). Processing of morphological and semantic cues in Russian and German. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14(2), 129-171.
53. Kim, A.; & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(2), 205-225.
54. Kolk, H. H.; Chwilla, D. J.; van Herten, M.; Oor, P. (2003). Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: a study with event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 85, 1-36.
55. Kretzschmar, F. (2010). The electrophysiological reality of parafoveal processing: on the validity of language-related ERPs in natural reading. PhD thesis, University of Marburg.
56. Kuperberg, G. R. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: challenges to syntax. Brain Research, 1146, 23-49.
57. Kutas, M.; & Federmeier, K. D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(12), 463-470.
58. Kutas, M.; & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207(4427), 203-205.
59. Lau, E. F.; Phillips, C.; Poeppel, D. (2008). A cortical network for semantics: (de)constructing the N400. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(12), 920-933.
60. Leslie, A. M. (1995). A theory of agency. In D. Sperber, D. Premack, A.J. Premack (Eds.), Causal cognition. A multidisciplinary debate (pp. 121-141). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
61. Lewis, R.; & Vasishth, S. (2005). An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal.
62. Lewis, R.; Vasishth, S.; Dyke, J. V. (2006). Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(10), 447-454.
63. Lewis, R. L. (2000). Specifying architectures for language processing: process, control, and memory in parsing and interpretation. In Mechanisms for language processing.
64. Lotze, N.; Tune, S.; Schlesewsky, M.; Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2011). Meaningful physical changes mediate lexical-semantic integration: top-down and form-based bottom-up information sources interact in the N400. Neuropsychologia, 49, 3573-3582.
65. MacWhinney, B.; & Bates, E. (1989). The cross-linguistic study of sentence processing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
66. MacWhinney, B.; Bates, E.; Kliegl, R. (1984). Cue validity and sentence intERPretation in english, German and Italian. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23(2), 127-50.
67. Magnusdottir, S.; Fillmore, P.; den Ouden, D.; Hjaltason, H.; Rorden, C.; Kjartansson, O.; Bonilha, L.; Fridriksson, J. (2012). Damage to left anterior temporal cortex predicts impairment of complex syntactic processing: a lesion-symptom mapping study. Human Brain Mapping.
68. Manning, C. D.; & Schütze, H. (2000). Foundations of statistical natural language processing. Cambridge: MIT Press.
69. Maris, E. (2004). Randomization tests for ERP topographies and whole spatiotemporal data matrices. Psychophysiology, 41, 142-151.
70. Maris, E.; & Oostenveld, R. (2007). Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG-data. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 164, 177-190.
71. Marslen-Wilson, W. (1973). Linguistic structure and speech shadowing at very short latencies. Nature, 244, 522-533.
72. Martin, A. E.; & McElree, B. (2008). A content-addressable pointer mechanism underlies comprehension of verb-phrase ellipsis. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 879-906.
73. McElree, B. (2006). Accessing recent events. In B.H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 46). San Diego: Academic Press.
74. McElree, B.; Foraker, S.; Dyer, L. (2003). Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(1), 67-91.
75. Muralikrishnan, R.; Schlesewsky, M.; Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2008). Universal and cross-linguistic influences on the processing of word order and animacy: Neurophysiological evidence from Tamil. In Proceedings from 21st annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing, Chapel Hill.
76. New, J.; Cosmides, L.; Tooby, J. (2007). Category-specific attention for animals reflects ancestral priorities, not expertise. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(42), 16,598-16,603.
77. Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
78. Nieuwenhuis, S.; Aston-Jones, G.; Cohen, J. D. (2005). Decision making, the p3, and the locus coerulus-norepinephrine system. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 510-532.
79. Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97-113.
80. Penolazzi, B.; Vincenzi, M. D.; Angrilli, A.; Job, R. (2005). Processing of temporary syntactic ambiguity in Italian "who"-questions: a study with event-related potentials. Neuroscience Letters, 377(2), 91-96.
81. Philipp, M.; Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I.; Bisang, W.; Schlesewsky, M. (2008). The role of animacy in the real time comprehension of Mandarin Chinese: evidence from auditory event-related brain potentials. Brain and Language, 105(2), 112-133.
82. Rauschecker, J. (1998). Cortical processing of complex sounds. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 8(4), 516-521.
83. Rauschecker, J.; & Scott, S. (2009). Maps and streams in the auditory cortex: nonhuman primates illuminate human speech processing. Nat Neurosci, 12(6), 718-724.
84. Roehm, D.; Schlesewsky, M.; Bornkessel, I.; Frisch, S.; Haider, H. (2004). Fractionating language comprehension via frequency characteristics of the human EEG. NeuroReport, 15(3), 409-412.
85. Roehm, D.; Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I.; Rösler, F.; Schlesewsky, M. (2007). To predict or not to predict: influences of task and strategy on the processing of semantic relations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1259-1274.
86. Sassenhagen, J.; Kretzschmar, F.; Mueller, E.; Schlesewsky, M.; Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2013). Independent components dominating ERP responses to linguistic stimuli also respond to domain-general events. Manuscript submitted for publication.
87. Schlesewsky, M.; & Bornkessel, I. (2004). On incremental interpretation: degrees of meaning accessed during sentence comprehension. Lingua, 114(9-10), 1213-1234.
88. Schlesewsky, M.; Fanselow, G.; Kliegl, R.; Krems, J. (2000). The subject preference in the processing of locally ambiguous wh-questions in German. In B. Hemforth, & L. Konieczny (Eds.), German sentence processing (pp. 65-93). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
89. Schriefers, H.; Friederici, A. D.; Kuhn, K. (1995). The processing of locally ambiguous relative clauses in German. Journal of Memory and Language, 34(4), 499-520.
90. Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6(2), 461-464.
91. Silverstein, M. (1976). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R.M. Dixon (Ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages (pp. 112-171). New Jersey: Humanities Press.
92. Simon, H. A. (1962). The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106, 467-482.
93. Stevens, S. S. (1951). Mathematics, measurement and psychophysics. In S.S. Stevens (Ed.) Handbook of experimental psychology (pp. 1-49). Wiley.
94. Stroud, C.; & Phillips, C. (2012). Examining the evidence for an independent semantic analyzer: an ERP study in spanish. Brain and Language, 120, 108-126.
95. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
96. Tomlin, R. (1986). Basic word order: Functional principles. London: Croom Helm.
97. van de Meerendonk, N.; Kolk, H. H.; Chwilla, D. J.; Vissers, C.T.W.M. (2009). Monitoring in language perception. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3, 1211-1224.
98. van de Meerendonk, N.; Kolk, H. H.; Vissers, C.T.W.M.; Chwilla, D. J. (2010). Monitoring in language perception: mild and strong conflicts elicit different ERP patterns. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 67-82.
99. Vincenzi, M. D. (1991). Filler-gap dependencies in a null-subject language: referential and non-referential whs. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20(3), 197-213.
100. Vissers, C.T.W.M.; Chwilla, D.; Kolk, H. (2006). Monitoring in language perception: The effect of misspellings of words in highly constrained sentences. Brain Research, 1106, 150-163.
101. Vosse, T.; & Kempen, G. (2000). Syntactic structure assembly in human parsing: a computational model based on competitive inhibition and a lexicalist grammar. Cognition, 75, 105-143.
102. Vosse, T. G.; & Kempen, G. AM. (2008). Parsing verb-final clauses in German: garden-path and ERP effects modeled by a parallel dynamic parser. In B. Love, K. McRae, V. Sloutsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the cognitive science society (Washington, DC, July 2008). Austin: Cognitive Science Society.
103. Vosse, T.; & Kempen, G. (2009). The unification space implemented as a localist neural net: predictions and error-tolerance in a constraint-based parser. Cognitive Neurodynamics, 3, 331-346.
104. Wang, L.; Schlesewsky, M.; Bickel, B.; Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2009). Exploring the nature of the 'subject'-preference: evidence from the online comprehension of simple sentences in Mandarin Chinese. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(7/8), 1180-1226.
105. Weckerly, J.; & Kutas, M. (1999). An electrophysiological analysis of animacy effects in the processing of object relative sentences. Psychophysiology, 36(05), 559-570.
106. Whitney, C.; Huber, W.; Klann, J.; Weis, S.; Krach, S.; Kircher, T. (2009). Neural correlates of narrative shifts during auditory story comprehension. NeuroImage, 47, 360-366.
107. Wolff, S.; Schlesewsky, M.; Hirotani, M.; Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2008). The neural mechanisms of word order processing revisited: Electrophysiological evidence from Japanese. Brain and Language, 107, 133-157.
108. Zipf, G. K. (1935). The psycho-biology of language. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
109. Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley.