Compound effect of probabilistic disambiguation and memory retrievals on sentence processing: Evidence from an eye-tracking corpus

Proceedings of ICCM 2009 - 9th International Conference on Cognitive Modeling

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 92-97

  Patil, Umesh ^a   Vasishth, Shravan ^a   Kliegl, Reinhold ^a  

^a Department of Linguistics ^*  (Germany)

Author keywords

cue based theory; eye tracking; memory retrievals; Sentence processing; surprisal

Indexed keywords

CONTENT BASED RETRIEVAL; FORMAL LANGUAGES; SYNTACTICS;

COMPLEXITY BASED; COMPOUND EFFECT; CUE-BASED THEORY; EYE-TRACKING; MEMORY RETRIEVAL; POTSDAM; PROBABILISTICS; PROCESSING COMPLEXITY; SENTENCE PROCESSING; SURPRISAL;

EYE TRACKING;

EID: 84956786896     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (24)

1. Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2005). An integrated theory of mind. Psychological Review.
2. Bates, D., & Sarkar, D. (2007). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes (R package version 0.9975-11) [Computer software].
3. Boston, M. F., Hale, J., Kliegl, R., Patil, U., & Vasishth, S. (2008). Parsing costs as predictors of reading difficulty: An evaluation using the potsdam sentence corpus. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 2(1), 1-12.
4. Demberg, V., & Keller, F. (2008). Data from eye-tracking corpora as evidence for theories of syntactic processing complexity. Cognition, 108(2), 193-210.
5. Ehrlich, S. F., & Rayner, K. (1981). Contextual effects on word perception and eye movements during reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 641-655.
6. Engbert, R., Nuthmann, A., Richter, E. M., & Kliegl, R. (2005). Swift: A dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. Psychological Review, 112(4), 777–813.
7. Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge University Press.
8. Geyken, A. (2007). The DWDS corpus: A reference corpus for the German language of the 20th century. In C. Fellbaum (Ed.), Idioms and Collocations: Corpus-based Linguistic, Lexicographic Studies. London: Continuum Press.
9. Gibson, E. (2000). Dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In A. Marantz, Y. Miyashita, & W. O’Neil (Eds.), Image, language, brain: Papers from the first mind articulation project symposium. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10. Grodner, D., & Gibson, E. (2005). Some consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input. Cognitive Science, 29(2), 261290.
11. Hale, J. (2001). A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. In Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 1–8). Pittsburgh, PA.
12. Jurafsky, D. (1996). A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science, 20(2), 137-194.
13. Jurafsky, D. (2003). Probabilistic modeling in psycholinguistics: Linguistic comprehension and production. In R. Bod, J. Hay, & S. Jannedy (Eds.), Probabilistic linguistics. MIT Press.
14. Kliegl, R., Geyken, A., Hanneforth, T., & Würzner, K. (2006). Corpus matters: A comparison of German DWDS and CELEX lexical and sublexical frequency norms for the prediction of reading fixations. Unpublished manuscript.
15. Kliegl, R., Grabner, E., Rolfs, M., & Engbert, R. (2004). Length, frequency and predictability effects of words on eye movements in reading. In Eye movements and information processing during reading (Vol. 16, p. 262-284). East Sussex: Psychology Press. (Special Issue)
16. Kliegl, R., Nuthmann, A., & Engbert, R. (2006). Tracking the mind during reading: The influence of past, present, and future words on fixation durations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 12-35.
17. Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106(3), 1126-1177.
18. Lewis, R. L. (1996). Interference in short-term memory: The magical number two (or three) in sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 93115.
19. Lewis, R. L., & Vasishth, S. (2005). An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29, 1-45.
20. Pollatsek, A., Reichle, E. D., & Rayner, K. (2006). Tests of the e-z reader model: Exploring the interface between cognition and eye-movement control. Cognitive Psychology, 52, 1 – 56.
21. Reichle, E., Warren, T., & McConnell, K. (2009). Using e-z reader to model effects of higher level language processing on eye-movements during reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(1), 1– 21.
22. Stolcke, A. (1995). An efficient probabilistic context-free parsing algorithm that computes prefix probabilities. Computational Linguistics, 21, 165–202.
23. Taylor, W. (1953). Cloze procedure: a new tool for measuring readability. Journalism Quarterly, 30, 415–433.
24. Vasishth, S., Bruessow, S., Lewis, R. L., & Drenhaus, H. (2008). Processing polarity: How the ungrammatical intrudes on the grammatical. Cognitive Science, 32(4).