Rapid expectation adaptation during syntactic comprehension

PLoS ONE

Volumn 8, Issue 10, 2013, Pages

  Fine, Alex B ^a   Jaeger, T Florian ^a,b   Farmer, Thomas A ^c   Qian, Ting ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER   (United States)

^b University of Rochester   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPREHENSION; EXPECTATION; EXPOSURE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; MODEL; STATISTICS; ARTICLE; ENVIRONMENT; LANGUAGE; LEARNING; LINGUISTICS; PHYSIOLOGY; READING;

COMPREHENSION; ENVIRONMENT; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; LEARNING; LINGUISTICS; READING;

EID: 84905301156     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0077661     Document Type: Article

References (140)

1. Liberman AM, Cooper FS, Shankweiler DP, Studdert-Kennedy M (1967) Perception of the speech code. Psychological Review 74: 431-461.
2. Allen JS, Miller JL, DeSteno D (2003) Individual talker differences in voiceonset- Time. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 113: 544. Available: http://link.aip.org/link/JASMAN/v113/i1/p544/s1&Agg=doi. Accessed 15 June 2011.
3. Bauer L (1985) Tracing phonetic change in the received pronunciation of British English. Journal of Phonetics 13: 61-81.
4. Harrington J, Palethorpe S, Watson CI (2000) Monophthongal vowel changes in Received Pronunciation: An acoustic analysis of the Queen's Christmas broadcasts. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 30: 63-78.
5. Yaeger-Dror M (1994) Phonetic evidence for sound change in Quebec French. In: Keating PA, editor. Phonological Structure and Phonetic Form: Papers in Laboratory Phonology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 267- 292.
6. Bell A (1984) Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13: 145- 204.
7. Tagliamonte SA, Smith J (2005) No momentary fancy! The zero complementizer in English dialects. English Language and Linguistics. English Language and Linguistics 9: 1-12.
8. Finegan E, Biber D (2001) Register variation and social dialect variation: The register axiom. In: Eckert P, Rickford JR, editors. Style and Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 235-267.
9. Roland D, Dick F, Elman JL (2007) Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: A corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language 57: 348-379. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.03.002.
10. Weiner EJ, Labov W (1983) Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics 19: 29-58.
11. MacDonald MC, Pearlmutter N, Seidenberg MS (1994) The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review 101: 676-703.
12. Mitchell DC, Cuetos F, Corley MMB, Brysbaert M (1995) Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (nonlexical) statistical records. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 24: 469-488.
13. Seidenberg MS, MacDonald MC (1999) A probabilistic constraints approach to language acquisition and processing. Cognitive science 23: 569-588.
14. Kleinschmidt DF, Jaeger TF (submitted) Robust speech perception: Recognize the familiar, generalize to the similar, and adapt to the novel.
15. Myslín M, Levy R (submitted) Comprehension priming as rational expectation for repetition.
16. Kleinschmidt D, Fine AB, Jaeger TF (2012) A belief-updating model of adaptation and cue combination in syntactic comprehension. Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.
17. Fine AB, Qian T, Jaeger TF, Jacobs RA (2010) Syntactic Adaptation in Language Comprehension. Proceedings of the 2010 Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics. Uppsala, Sweden: Association for Computational Linguistics. 18-26.
18. Cuetos F, Mitchell DC, Corley MMB (1996) Parsing in Different Languages. In: Carreiras M, García-Albea J, Sabastían-Gallés N, editors. Language processing in Spanish. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 145-187.
19. Levy R (2008) Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106: 1126-1177. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17662975.
20. Traxler MJ (2008) Lexically independent priming in online sentence comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 15: 149-155. Available: http://pbr.psychonomic-journals.org/cgi/doi/10.3758/PBR.15.1.149. Accessed 29 September 2011.
21. Thothathiri M, Snedeker J (2008) Give and take: syntactic priming during spoken language comprehension. Cognition 108: 51-68. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18258226. Accessed 21 July 2011.
22. Arai M, van Gompel RPG, Scheepers C (2007) Priming ditransitive structures in comprehension. Cognitive Psychology 54: 218-250. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16973144 Accessed 21 July 2011.
23. Chang F, Dell GS, Bock K (2006) Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review 113: 234-272. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16637761. Accessed 18 August 2010.
24. Elman JL (1990) Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science 14: 179-211.
25. Fine AB, Jaeger TF (2013) Evidence for implicit learning in syntactic comprehension. Cognitive Science 37: 578-591.
26. Jaeger TF, Snider NE (2013) Alignment as a consequence of expectation adaptation: syntactic priming is affected by the prime ' s prediction error given both prior and recent experience. Cognition 127: 57-83.
27. Misyak JB, Christiansen MH (2012) Statistical Learning and Language: An Individual Differences Study. Language Learning 62: 302-331. Available: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00626.x. Accessed 16 July 2012.
28. Wells JB, Christiansen MH, Race DS, Acheson DJ, MacDonald MC (2009) Experience and sentence processing: statistical learning and relative clause comprehension. Cognitive Psychology 58: 250-271. Available: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2621112&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract. Accessed 20 September 2011.
29. Boston MF, Hale JT, Vasishth S, Kliegl R (2011) Parallel processing and sentence comprehension difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes 26: 301- 349.
30. Demberg V, Keller F (2008) Data from eye- Tracking corpora as evidence for theories of syntactic processing complexity. Cognition 109: 193-210.
31. Frank SL, Bod R (2011) Insensitivity of the human sentence-processing system to hierarchical structure. Psychological Science 22: 829-834.
32. Kamide Y, Altmann GTM, Haywood SL (2003) Prediction and thematic information in incremental sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language 49: 133-156.
33. McDonald SA, Shillcock RC (2003) Eye movements reveal the on-line computation of lexical probabilities during reading. Psychological Science 14: 648-652. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14629701.
34. Staub A, Clifton, C J (2006) Syntactic prediction in language comprehension: Evidence from either...or. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, memory, and cognition 32: 425-436. Available: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1479855&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract. Accessed 4 August 2011.
35. Garnsey S, Pearlmutter N, Myers E, Lotocky M (1997) The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 37: 58-93.
36. McRae K, Spivey-Knowlton MJ, Tanenhaus MK (1998) Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on-line sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 38: 283-312.
37. Tanenhaus MK, Spivey-Knowlton MJ, Eberhard K, Sedivy J (1995) Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science 268: 1632-1634.
38. Trueswell JC, Tanenhaus MK, Garnsey S (1994) Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 33: 285-318.
39. Trueswell JC, Tanenhaus MK, Kello C (1993) Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 19: 528-553.
40. Frazier L, Fodor JD (1978) The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition 66: 291-325.
41. MacDonald MC, Just MA, Carpenter PA (1992) Memory Constraints on the Processing Syntactic Ambiguity. Cognitive Psychology 98: 56-98.
42. Tabossi P, Spivey-Knowlton, M. J.McRae K, Tanenhaus MK (1994) Semantic effects on syntactic ambiguity resolution: Evidence for a constraint-based resolution process. Attention & Performance XV. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
43. Bates E, MacWhinney B (1987) Competition, variation, and language learning. In: MacWhinney B, editor. Mechanisms of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
44. Hale JT (2001) A probabilistic earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. Proceedings of the North American Association for Computational Linguistics. pp. 159-166.
45. Jurafsky D (1996) A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science 20: 137-194.
46. MacDonald MC, Christiansen MH (2002) Reassessing working memory: A comment on Just & Carpenter (1992) and Waters & Caplan (1996). Psychological Review 109: 35-54.
47. Narayanan S, Jurafsky D (2002) A Bayesian Model Predicts Human Parse Preference and Reading Time in Sentence Processing. In: Dietterich TG, Becker S, Gharamani Z, editors. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 14. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
48. Reali F, Christiansen MH (2007) Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence. Journal of Memory and Language. Journal of Memory and Language 53: 1-23.
49. Tabor W, Juliano CJ, Tanenhaus MK (1997) Parsing in a dynamical system: An attractor-based account of the interaction of lexical and structural constraints in sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 12: 211-271.
50. Griffiths TL, Chater N, Kemp C, Perfors A, Tenenbaum JB (2010) Probabilistic models of cognition: Exploring representations and inductive biases. Trends in Cognitive Science 14: 357-364. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20576465. Accessed 14 July 2011.
51. McClelland JL (1998) connectionist models and Bayesian inference. Rational Models of Cognition: 21-53.
52. Chater N, Tenenbaum JB, Yuille A (2006) Probabilistic models of cognition: conceptual foundations. Trends in Cognitive Science 10: 287-291. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16807064.
53. 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.
54. Levy R, Bicknell K, Slattery T, Rayner K (2009) Eye movement evidence that readers maintain and act on uncertainty about past linguistic input. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106: 21086-21090. Available: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2795489&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract.
55. Norris D, McQueen JM (2008) Shortlist B: A Bayesian model of continuous speech recognition. Psychological Review 115: 357-395. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18426294. Accessed 7 July 2011.
56. Smith NJ, Levy R (2013) The effect of word predictability on reading time is logarithmic. Cognition.
57. Branigan HP, Pickering MJ, McLean JF (2005) Priming prepositional-phrase attachment during comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition 31: 468-481.
58. Kamide Y (2012) Learning individual talkers' structural preferences. Cognition 124: 66-71. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22498776. Accessed 13 July 2012.
59. Kaschak MP, Glenberg AM (2004) This construction needs learned. Journal of experimental psychology General 133: 450-467. Availablehttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15355149. Accessed 11 August 2011.
60. Farmer TA, Monaghan P, Misyak JB, Christiansen MH (2011) Phonological typicality influences sentence processing in predictive contexts: A reply to Staub et al. (2009). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 37: 1318-1325.
61. Bod R (2006) Exemplar-based syntax: How to get productivity from examples. The Linguistic Review 23: 291-320. Available: http://www.reference-global.com/doi/abs/10.1515/TLR.2006.012.
62. Hare M, Tanenhaus MK, McRae K (2007) Understanding and producing the reduced relative construction: Evidence from ratings, editing and corpora. Journal of memory and language 56: 410-435. Available: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3234689&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract. Accessed 31 May 2013.
63. Gómez RL, Gerken LA (1999) Artificial grammar learning by one-year-olds leads to specific and abstract knowledge. Cognition 70: 109-135.
64. Saffran JR, Aslin RN, Newport EL (1996) Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science 274: 1926-1928.
65. Saffran JR, Newport EL, Aslin RN (1996) Word segmentation: The role of distributional cues. Journal of Memory and Language 35: 606-621.
66. Gravano A, Levitan R, Willson L, Beňuš Š, Hirschberg J, et al. (2011) Acoustic and Prosodic Correlates of Social Behavior. Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association. Florence, Italy.
67. Levitan R, Gravano A, Hirschberg J (2011) Entrainment in Speech Preceding Backchannels. Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Portland, OR.
68. Levitan R, Hirschberg J (2011) Measuring acoustic-prosodic entrainment with respect to multiple levels and dimensions. Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Portland, .
69. Giles H, Coupland J, Coupland N (1991) Contexts of accommodation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
70. Kim M, Horton WS, Bradlow AR (2011) Phonetic convergence in spontaneous conversations as a function of interlocutor language distance. Journal of Laboratory Phonology 2: 125-156.
71. Pardo JS (2006) On phonetic convergence during conversational interaction. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 119: 2382-2393. Available: http://link.aip.org/link/JASMAN/v119/i4/p2382/s1&Agg=doi. Accessed 16 July 2011.
72. Pickering MJ, Garrod S (2004) Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27: 169-226. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15595235.
73. Ledoux K, Traxler MJ, Swaab TY (2007) Syntactic priming in comprehension: Evidence from event-related potentials. Psychological Science 18: 135-143. Ava i labl e : http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1852484&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract.
74. Kemtes KA, Kemper S (1997) Younger and older adults' on-line processing of syntactically ambiguous sentences. Psychology and Aging 12: 362-371. Available: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0882-7974.12.2.362.
75. Kim C, Carbary K, Tanenhaus MK (2013) Syntactic Priming without Lexical Overlap in Reading Comprehension. Language and Speech 57.
76. Just MA, Carpenter PA, Woolley JD (1982) Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of experimental psychology: General 111: 228-238. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6213735.
77. Ferreira F, Clifton CE (1986) The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language 25: 348-368.
78. Luka B, Choi H (2012) Dynamic grammar in adults: Incidental learning of natural syntactic structures extends over 48 h. Journal of Memory and Language 66: 345-360. Available: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0749596X11001112. Accessed 6 March 2012.
79. Logan GD (1988) Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review 95: 492-527.
80. Logan GD (2002) An instance theory of memory and attention. Psychological Review 109: 376-400.
81. Braine MDS, Brody RE, Brooks PJ, Sudhalter V, Ross JA, et al. (1990) Exploring Language Acquisition in Children with a Miniature Artificial Language: Effects of Item and Pattern Frequency, Arbitrary Subclasses, and Correction. Journal of Memory and Language 29: 591-610.
82. Wonnacott E, Newport EL, Tanenhaus MK (2008) Acquiring and processing verb argument structure: distributional learning in a miniature language. Cognitive psychology 56: 165-209. Available: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2405816&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract. Accessed 1 August 2011.
83. Fedzechkina M, Jaeger TF, Newport EL (2012) Language learners restructure their input to facilitate efficient communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109: 17897-17902.
84. Karuza EA, Newport EL, Aslin RN, Starling SJ, Tivarus ME, et al. (submitted) Neural correlates of statistical learning in a word segmentation task: An fMRI study. Brain and language.
85. Abla D, Okanoya K (2008) Statistical segmentation of tone sequences activates the left inferior frontal cortex: A near-infrared spectroscopy study. Neuropsychologia 46: 2787-2795.
86. Turk-Browne NB, Scholl BJ, Chun MM, Johnson MK (2008) Neural evidence of statistical learning: Efficient detection of visual regularities without awareness. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 21: 1934-1945.
87. Farmer TA, Misyak JB, Fine AB, Christiansen MH (submitted) Verbal working memory and linguistic experience in on-line language comprehension.
88. Fine AB, Jaeger TF (2011) Language comprehension is sensitive to changes in the reliability of lexical cues. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Boston, MA. 925-930.
89. King J, Just MA (1991) Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language 30: 580-602.
90. Branigan HP, Pickering MJ, Cleland AA (1999) Syntactic priming in written production: Evidence for rapid decay. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 6: 635-640.
91. Bock K, Griffin ZM (2000) The Persistence of Structural Priming: Transient Activation or Implicit Learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 129: 177-192. doi:10.10371/D096-3445.129.2.1T/The.
92. Kaschak MP, Loney RA, Borreggine KL (2006) Recent experience affects the strength of structural priming. Cognition 99: B73-B82.
93. Kaschak MP, Kutta TJ, Schatschneider C (2011) Long- Term cumulative structural priming persists for (at least) one week. Memory & cognition 39: 381- 388.
94. Hartsuiker RJ, Bernolet S, Schoonbaert S, Speybroeck S, Vanderelst D (2008) Syntactic priming persists while the lexical boost decays: Evidence from written and spoken dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language 58: 214-238. Available: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0749596X07000861. Accessed 28 July 2011.
95. Reitter D, Keller F, Moore JD (2011) A computational cognitive model of syntactic priming. Cognitive science 35: 587-637. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21564266. Accessed 29 September 2011.
96. Kaschak MP, Borreggine KL (2008) Is long- Term structural priming affected by patterns of experience with individual verbs? Journal of Memory and Language 58: 862-878. Available: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0749596X07000137. Accessed 9 August 2011.
97. Pickering MJ, Ferreira VS (2008) Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin 134: 427-459.
98. Pickering MJ, Branigan HP, Cleland AA, Stewart AJ (2000) Activation of syntactic information during language production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29: 205-216.
99. Sauermann A, Kliegl R, Fanselow G (submitted) Inducing the production of previously inacceptable grammatical constructions.
100. Kaschak MP, Kutta TJ, Jones JL (2011) Structural priming as implicit learning: Cumulative priming effects and individual differences. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 18: 1133-1139.
101. Chang F, Dell GS, Bock K, Griffin ZM (2000) Structural priming as implicit learning: A comparison of models of sentence production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29: 217-229.
102. Clark A (2012) Whatever Next? Predictive Brains, Situated Agents, and the Future of Cognitive Science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
103. Bar M (2007) The proactive brain: using analogies and associations to generate predictions. Trends in Cognitive Science 11: 280-289. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17548232. Accessed 15 July 2011.
104. Courville AC, Daw ND, Touretzky DS (2006) Bayesian theories of conditioning in a changing world. Trends in Cognitive Science 10: 294-300. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16793323. Accessed 6 July 2011.
105. Battaglia P, Aslin RN, Jacobs RA (2004) Depth-dependent blur adaptation. Vision Research 44: 113-117.
106. Blakemore C, Campbell FW (1969) On the existence of neurones in the human visual system selectively sensitive to the orientation and size of retinal images. The Journal of Physiology 203: 237-260.
107. Glasser DM, Tsui JMG, Pack CC, Tadin D (2011) Perceptual and neural consequences of rapid motion adaptation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108: 1080-1088.
108. Kohn A (2007) Visual adaptation: physiology, mechanisms, and functional benefits. Journal of Neurophysiology 97: 3155-3164. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17344377. Accessed 24 June 2011.
109. Krekelberg B, Boynton GM, van Wezel RJA (2006) Adaptation: From single cells to BOLD signals. Trends in Neuroscience 29: 250-256.
110. Leopold DA, O'Toole AJ, Vetter T, Blanz V (2001) Prototype-referenced shape encoding revealed by high-level aftereffects. Nature Neuroscience 4: 89- 94. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11135650.
111. Koerding KP, Wolpert DM (2004) Bayesian integration in sensorimotor learning. Nature 427: 244-247.
112. Koerding KP, Tenenbaum JB, Shadmehr R (2007) The dynamics of memory as a consequence of optimal adaptation to a changing body. Nature Neuroscience 10: 779-786. Available: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2551734&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract. Accessed 20 July 2011.
113. Wallman J, Fuchsa F (1998) Saccadic gain modification: visual error drives motor adaptation. Journal of Neurophysiology 80: 2405-2416. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9819252.
114. Lipinski J, Simmering VR, Johnson JS, Spencer JP (2010) The role of experience in location estimation: Target distributions shift location memory biases. Cognition 115: 147-153. Available: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2830296&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract. Accessed 12 January 2013.
115. Tarr MJ, Gauthier I (2000) FFA: A flexible fusiform area for subordinate-level visual processing automatized by expertise. Nature Neuroscience 3: 764-769. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10903568.
116. Egner T, Monti JM, Summerfield C (2010) Expectation and surprise determine neural population responses in the ventral visual stream. The Journal of Neuroscience 30: 16601-16608. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21147999. Accessed 18 July 2011.
117. Norris D, McQueen JM, Cutler A (2003) Perceptual learning in speech. Cognitive Psychology 47: 204-238. Available: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0010028503000069. Accessed 25 July 2011.
118. Kraljic T, Samuel AG (2006) Generalization in perceptual learning for speech. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 13: 262-268. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16892992.
119. Vroomen J, van Linden S, Keetels M, de Gelder B, Bertelson P (2004) Selective adaptation and recalibration of auditory speech by lipread information: dissipation. Speech Communication 44: 55-61.
120. Creel SC, Aslin RN, Tanenhaus MK (2008) Heeding the voice of experience: The role of talker variation in lexical access. Cognition 106: 633-664.
121. Metzing C, Brennan SE (2003) When conceptual pacts are broken: Partnerspecific effects on the comprehension of referring expressions. Journal of Memory and Language 49: 201-213. Available: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0749596X03000287. Accessed 14 June 2011.
122. Kurumada C, Brown M, Tanenhaus MK (2012) Pragmatic interpretation of speech: It looks like speech adaptation. Proceedings of the 35th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Sapporo, Japan.
123. Grodner, D. & Sedivy J (2011) The effect of speaker-specific information on pragmatic inferences. In: Gibson E, Pearlmutter N, editors. The Processing and Acquisition of Reference. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Vol. 2327. 239-272.
124. Clark HH (1992) Arenas of language use. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
125. Bradlow AR, Bent T (2008) Perceptual adaptation to non-native speech. Cognition 106: 707-729. Available: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2213510&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract. Accessed 25 July 2011.
126. Clarke CM, Garrett MF (2004) Rapid adaptation to foreign- Accented English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 116: 3647-3658.
127. Kleinschmidt D, Jaeger TF (2011) A Bayesian Belief Updating Model of Phonetic Recalibration and Selective Adaptation. Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics. Portland, OR: Association for Computational Linguistics. 10-19.
128. Kleinschmidt D, Jaeger TF (2012) Evaluation of a Bayesian belief-updating model for the time course of linguistic adaptation. 25th Meeting of the CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing.
129. Sonderegger M, Yu A (2010) A rational account of perceptual compensation for coarticulation. In: Ohlsson S, Catrambone R, editors. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX. 375- 380.
130. Clayards M, Tanenhaus MK, Aslin RN, Jacobs RA (2008) Perception of speech reflects optimal use of probabilistic speech cues. Cognition 108: 804- 809. Available: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2582186&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract. Accessed 16 June 2011.
131. Feldman NH, Griffiths TL, Morgan JL (2009) The influence of categories on perception: Explaining the perceptual magnet effect as optimal statistical inference. Psychological Review 116: 752-782. Available: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2785510&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract. Accessed 21 December 2012.
132. Sato Y, Aihara K (2011) A bayesian model of sensory adaptation. PloS one 6: E19377. Available: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3081833&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract. Accessed 20 June 2011.
133. Farmer TA, Brown M, Tanenhaus MK (2013) Prediction, explanation, and the role of generative models in language processing. Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
134. Jaeger TF, Ferreira VS (2013) Seeking predictions from a predictive framework. Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
135. Qian T, Jaeger TF, Aslin RN (2012) Learning to Represent a Multi-Context Environment: More than Detecting Changes. Frontiers in Psychology: 1-20. 136.
136. Jaeger TF (2010) Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology 61: 23-62. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.02.002.
137. Staub A, Grant M, Clifton, C J, Rayner K (2009) Phonological typicality does not influence fixation durations in normal reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 35: 806-814.
138. Goldinger SD (1996) Words and voices: Episodic traces in spoken word identification and recognition memory. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, memory, and cognition 22: 1166-1183. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8926483.
139. Eisner F, McQueen JM (2006) Perceptual learning in speech: Stability over time. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 119: 1950. Available: http://link.aip.org/link/JASMAN/v119/i4/p1950/s1&Agg=doi Accessed 4 August 2011.
140. Eckert P, Rickford J (2001) Style and Sociolinguistic Variation. Eckert P, Rickford J, editors Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.