Understanding underspecification: A comparison of two computational implementations

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Volumn 69, Issue 5, 2016, Pages 996-1012

  Logačev, Pavel ^a   Vasishth, Shravan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF POTSDAM   (Germany)

Author keywords

Computational modelling; Shallow processing; Underspecification

Indexed keywords

COMPREHENSION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMAN; INDIVIDUALITY; LANGUAGE; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; READING;

COMPREHENSION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMANS; INDIVIDUALITY; LANGUAGE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; READING;

EID: 84961231574     PISSN: 17470218     EISSN: 17470226     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2015.1134602     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. M.Carreiras,, & C.Clifton, (1993). Relative clause interpretation preferences in spanish and english. Language and Speech, 36(4), 353–372.
2. K.Christianson,, A.Hollingworth,, J.F.Halliwell,, & F.Ferreira, (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42(4), 368–407. doi: 10.1006/cogp.2001.0752
3. K.Christianson,, S.G.Luke,, & F.Ferreira, (2010). Effects of plausibility on structural priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(2), 538–544.
4. D.Cousineau, (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson's method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1(1), 2–5.
5. F.Ferreira, (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47(2), 164–203. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00005-7
6. F.Ferreira,, K.G.D.Bailey,, & V.Ferraro, (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 11–15. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00158
7. L.Frazier,, & C.J.Clifton, (1997). Construal: Overview, motivation, and some new evidence. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26(3), 277–295. doi: 10.1023/A:1025024524133
8. R.Levy, (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106(3), 1126–1177. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006
9. R.Levy,, K.Bicknell,, T.Slattery,, & K.Rayner, (2009). Eye movement evidence that readers maintain and act on uncertainty about past linguistic input. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(50), 21086–21090. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0907664106
10. P.Logačev,, & S.Vasishth, (2015). A multiple-channel model of task-dependent ambiguity resolution in sentence comprehension. Cognitive Science. doi:10.1111/cogs.12228.
11. R.D.Luce, (1986). Response times: Their role in inferring elementary mental organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12. S.M.Lynch, (2007). Introduction to applied bayesian statistics and estimation for social scientists. New York: Springer.
13. R.D.Morey, (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorial in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4(2), 61–64.
14. A.J.Sanford,, & P.Sturt, (2002). Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(9), 382–386. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01958-7
15. M.J.Spivey,, & M.K.Tanenhaus, (1998). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in discourse: Modeling the effects of referential context and lexical frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24(6), 1521–1543.
16. M.K.Spivey-Knowlton, (1996). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension (Doctoral dissertation). Unversity of Rochester.
17. Stan Development Team. (2015). Stan: a c++ library for probability and sampling, version 2.7.0.
18. P.Sturt,, & M.Crocker, (1997). Thematic monotonicity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26(3), 297–322. doi: 10.1023/A:1025076608204
19. B.Swets,, T.Desmet,, C.Clifton,, & F.Ferreira, (2008). Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading. Memory and Cognition, 36(1), 201–216. doi: 10.3758/MC.36.1.201
20. M.J.Traxler,, M.J.Pickering,, & C.Clifton, (1998). Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(4), 558–592. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1998.2600
21. R.P.G.van Gompel,, M.J.Pickering,, & M.J.Traxler, (2000). Unrestricted race: A new model of syntactic ambiguity resolution. In A.Kennedy, R.Radach, D.Heller, & J.Pynte (Eds.), Reading as a perceptual process (pp. 621–648). Oxford: Elsevier.
22. A.Vehtari,, & A.Gelman, (2014). Waic and cross-validation in Stan. Submitted. Retrieved from http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/waicstan.pdf
23. S.Watanabe, (2010). Asymptotic equivalence of bayes cross validation and widely applicable information criterion in singular learning theory. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 11, 3571–3594.