Uncertainty reduction as a measure of cognitive processing effort

Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 81-89

  Frank, Stefan L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; ENTROPY;

'CURRENT; COGNITIVE EFFORTS; COGNITIVE PROCESSING; ENTROPY REDUCTION; PAPER TESTS; UNCERTAINTY; UNCERTAINTY REDUCTION;

RECURRENT NEURAL NETWORKS;

EID: 85103650645     PISSN: 0736587X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (16)

1. M. F. Boston, J. Hale, U. Patil, R. Kliegl, and S. Vasishth. 2008. Parsing costs as predictors of reading difficulty: An evaluation using the Potsdam Sentence Corpus. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 2:1-12.
2. M. H. Christiansen and M. C. MacDonald. 2009. A usage-based approach to recursion in sentence processing. Language Learning, 59:129-164.
3. V. Demberg and F. Keller. 2008. Data from eye-tracking corpora as evidence for theories of syntactic processing complexity. Cognition, 109:193-210.
4. B. Efron and R. Tibshirani. 1986. Bootstrap methods for standard errors, confidence intervals, and other measures of statistical accuracy. Statistical Science, 1:54-75.
5. J. L. Elman. 1990. Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14:179-211.
6. 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.
7. S. L. Frank. 2010. The role of world knowledge in sentence comprehension: an information-theoretic analysis and a connectionist simulation. Manuscript in preparation.
8. J. Hale. 2001. A probabilistic Early parser as a psycholinguistic model. In Proceedings of the second conference of the North American chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, volume 2, pages 159-166. Pittsburgh, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
9. J. Hale. 2003. The information conveyed by words. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32:101-123.
10. J. Hale. 2006. Uncertainty about the rest of the sentence. Cognitive Science, 30:643-672.
11. A. Kennedy and J. Pynte. 2005. Parafoveal-on-foveal effects in normal reading. Vision Research, 45:153-168.
12. R. Levy. 2008. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106:1126-1177.
13. M. Marcus, B. Santorini, and M. A. Marcinkiewicz. 1993. Building a large annotated corpus of english: the Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19:313-330.
14. D. Marr. 1982. Vision. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company.
15. B. Roark, A. Bachrach, C. Cardenas, and C. Pallier. 2009. Deriving lexical and syntactic expectation-based measures for psycholinguistic modeling via incremental top-down parsing. In Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 324-333. Association for Computational Linguistics.
16. N. J. Smith and R. Levy. 2008. Optimal processing times in reading: a formal model and empirical investigation. In B. C. Love, K. McRae, and V. M. Sloutsky, editors, Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pages 595-600. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.