Word surprisal predicts N400 amplitude during reading

ACL 2013 - 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference

Volumn 2, Issue , 2013, Pages 878-883

  Frank, Stefan L ^a,b   Otten, Leun J ^c   Galli, Giulia ^c   Vigliocco, Gabriella ^b  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; MARKOV PROCESSES; SYNTACTICS;

EEG SIGNALS; EVENT RELATED POTENTIALS; LANGUAGE COMPREHENSIONS; LANGUAGE MODEL; MARKOV MODEL; MODELING TYPE; PHRASE STRUCTURE GRAMMARS;

RECURRENT NEURAL NETWORKS;

EID: 84907302833     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (27)

1. Y. Benjamini and Y. Hochberg. 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 57:289-300.
2. S. F. Chen and J. Goodman. 1999. An empirical study of smoothing techniques for language modeling. Computer Speech and Language, 13:359-394.
3. M. Dambacher, R. Kliegl, M. Hofmann, and A. M. Jacobs. 2006. Frequency and predictability effect on event-related potentials during reading. Brain Research, 1084:89-103.
4. A. Dubey, F Keller, and P. Sturt. 2011. A model of discourse predictions in human sentence processing. In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 304-312. Edinburgh, UK: Association for Computational Linguistics.
5. I. Fernandez Monsalve, S. L. Frank, and G. Vigliocco. 2012. Lexical surprisal as a general predictor of reading time. In Proceedings of the 13th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 398-408. Avignon, France: Association for Computational Linguistics.
6. S. L. Frank and R. Bod. 2011. Insensitivity of the human sentence-processing system to hierarchical structure. Psychological Science, 22:829-834.
7. S. L. Frank and R. L. Thompson. 2012. Early effects of word surprisal on pupil size during reading. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pages 1554-1559. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
8. S. L. Frank, I. Fernandez Monsalve, R. L. Thompson, and G Vigliocco. in press. Reading time data for evaluating broad-coverage models of English sentence processing. Behavior Research Methods.
9. S. L. Frank. 2009. Surprisal-based comparison between a symbolic and a connectionist model of sentence processing. In N. A. Taatgen and H. van Rijn, editors, Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pages 1139-1144. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
10. S. L. Frank. in press. Uncertainty reduction as a measure of cognitive processing load in sentence comprehension. Topics in Cognitive Science.
11. A. D. Friederici, K. Steinhauer, and S. Frisch. 1999. Lexical integration: sequential effects of syntactic and semantic information. Memory & Cognition, 27:438-453.
12. T. C. Gunter, A. D. Friederici, and A. Hahne. 1999. Brain responses during sentence reading: Visual input affects central processes. NeuroReport, 10:3175-3178.
13. J. T. Hale. 2001. A probabilistic Early parser as a psycholinguistic model. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Volume 2, pages 159-166. Pittsburgh, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
14. E. Kaan. 2007. Event-related potentials and language processing: a brief overview. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1:571-591.
15. D. N. Kalikow, K. N. Stevens, and L. L. Elliott. 1977. Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 61:1337-1351.
16. D. Klein and C. D. Manning. 2003. Accurate unlex-icalized parsing. In Proceedings of the 41st Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 423-430. Sapporo, Japan: Association for Computational Linguistics.
17. M. Kutas and S. A. Hillyard. 1984. Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307:161-163.
18. R. Levy. 2008. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106:1126-1177.
19. J. Mitchell, M. Lapata, V. Demberg, and F. Keller. 2010. Syntactic and semantic factors in processing difficulty: An integrated measure. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 196-206. Uppsala, Sweden: Association for Computational Linguistics.
20. E. M. Moreno, K. D. Federmeier, and M. Kutas. 2002. Switching languages, switching palabras (words): an electrophysiological study of code switching. Brain and Language, 80:188-207.
21. H. Neville, J. L. Nicol, A. Barss, K. I. Forster, and M. F. Garrett. 1991. Syntactically based sentence processing classes: evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3:151-165.
22. L. Osterhout and P. J. Holcomb. 1992. Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31:785-806.
23. M. Parviz, M. Johnson, B. Johnson, and J. Brock. 2011. Using language models and Latent Semantic Analysis to characterise the N400m neural response. In Proceedings of the Australasian Language Technology Association Workshop 2011, pages 38-46. Canberra, Australia.
24. B. Roark. 2001. Probabilistic top-down parsing and language modeling. Computational Linguistics, 27:249-276.
25. N. J. Smith and R. Levy. in press. The effect of word predictability on reading time is logarithmic. Cognition.
26. A. Stolcke. 2002. SRILM - an extensible language modeling toolkit. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, pages 901-904. Denver, Colorado.
27. C. Van Petten and B. J. Luka. 2012. Prediction during language comprehension: benefits, costs, and ERP components. International Journal of Psychophysi-ology, 83:176-190.