Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T11:41:39.864Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2021

Shravan Vasishth  and
Felix Engelmann
Shravan Vasishth
Affiliation:
Universität Potsdam, Germany
Felix Engelmann
Affiliation:
Universität Potsdam, Germany
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Sentence Comprehension as a Cognitive Process
A Computational Approach
 , pp. 203 - 220
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, J. R. 1974. Retrieval of propositional information from long-term memory. Cognitive Psychology, 6(4), 451–474.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., and Qin, Y. 2004. An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1036–1060.Google Scholar
Anderson, John R., and Lebiere, Christian. 1998. Atomic Components of Thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
Ariel, M. 1990. Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Arnold, D. 2007. Non-restrictive relatives are not orphans. Journal of Linguistics, 43(2), 271–309.Google Scholar
Arnold, J. E. 2001. The effect of thematic roles on pronoun use and frequency of reference continuation. Discourse Processes, 31, 137–162.Google Scholar
Avetisyan, S., Lago, S., and Vasishth, S. 2020. Does case marking affect agreement attraction in comprehension? Journal of Memory and Language, 112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2020.104087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avrutin, S. 2006. Weak syntax. In Grodzinsky, Y. and Amunts, K., eds., Broca's Region. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 49–62.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Milin, P., Djurdjević, D. F., Hendrix, P., and Marelli, M. 2011. An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naive discriminative learning. Psychological Review, 118(3), 438.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., and van Rijn, H. 1993. The CELEX lexical data base on CD-ROM. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. D. 2003. Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4(10), 829–839.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. D., and Hitch, G. J. 1974. Working memory. In Bower, G. A., ed., The Psychology of Learning and Motivation. Vol. 8. New York: Academic Press, pp. 47–89.Google Scholar
Badecker, W., and Straub, K. 2002. The processing role of structural constraints on the interpretation of pronouns and anaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(4), 748–769.Google ScholarPubMed
Bader, M. 2016. Complex center embedding in German – The effect of sentence position. In Featherston, S. and Versley, Y., eds., Quantitative Approaches to Grammar and Grammatical Change: Perspectives from Germanic. Berlin/Potsdam: DeGruyter Mouton, pp. 9–31.Google Scholar
Bartek, B., Lewis, R. L., Vasishth, S., and Smith, M. R. 2011. In search of on-line locality effects in sentence comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(5), 1178–1198.Google Scholar
Beretta, A., and Munn, A. 1998. Double-agents and trace-deletion in agrammatism. Brain and Language, 65(3), 404–421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berman, M. G., Jonides, J., and Lewis, R. L. 2009. In search of decay in verbal short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(2), 317.Google Scholar
Berwick, R., and Weinberg, A. 1984. The Grammatical Basis of Linguistic Performance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bicknell, K., and Levy, R. 2010. A rational model of eye movement control in reading. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Uppsala, Sweden: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 1168–1178.Google Scholar
Binder, K. S., Duffy, S. A., and Rayner, K. 2001. The effects of thematic fit and discourse context on syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 44(2), 297–324.Google Scholar
Blastland, M., and Spiegelhalter, D. 2014. The Norm Chronicles: Stories and Numbers about Danger and Death. London: Profile Books.Google Scholar
Blitzstein, Joseph K, and Hwang, Jessica. 2014. Introduction to Probability. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
Blumstein, S. E., Byma, G., Kurowski, K., Hourihan, J., Brown, T., and Hutchinson, A. 1998. On-line processing of filler-gap construction in aphasia. Brain and Language, 61(2), 149–168.Google Scholar
Booth, R. W., and Weger, U. W. 2013. The function of regressions in reading: Backward eye movements allow rereading. Memory and Cognition, 41(1), 82–97.Google Scholar
Boston, M. F., Hale, J. T., Patil, U., Kliegl, R., and 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.Google Scholar
Boston, M. F., Hale, J. T., Vasishth, S., and Kliegl, R. 2011. Parallel processing and sentence comprehension difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(3), 301–349.Google Scholar
Brasoveanu, Adrian, and Dotlačil, Jakub. 2020. Computational Cognitive Modeling and Linguistic Theory. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Brennan, S. E. 1995. Centering attention in discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10(2), 137–167.Google Scholar
Brown, J. 1958. Some tests of the decay theory of immediate memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 10, 173–189.Google Scholar
Budiu, R., and Anderson, J. 2004. Interpretation-based processing: A unified theory of semantic sentence comprehension. Cognitive Science, 28(1), 1–44.Google Scholar
Burkhardt, P., Piñango, M. M., and Wong, K. 2003. The role of the anterior left hemisphere in real-time sentence comprehension: Evidence from split intransitivity. Brain and Language, 86(1), 9–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bürki, Audrey, Elbuy, Shereen, Madec, Sylvain, and Vasishth, Shravan. 2020. What did we learn from forty years of research on semantic interference? A Bayesian meta-analysis. Journal of Memory and Language. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2020.104125.Google Scholar
Busemeyer, J. R., and Diederich, A. 2010. Cognitive Modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–733.Google Scholar
Caplan, D. 2009. The neural basis of syntactic processing. In Gazzaniga, M. S., ed., The Cognitive Neurosciences, 4th ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 805–816.Google Scholar
Caplan, D. 2012. Resource reduction accounts of syntactically based comprehension disorders. In Bastiaanse, R. and Thompson, C. K., eds., Perspectives on Agrammatism. Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press, pp. 48–62.Google Scholar
Caplan, D., Baker, C., and Dehaut, F. 1985. Syntactic determinants of sentence comprehension in aphasia. Cognition, 21(2), 117–175.Google Scholar
Caplan, D., Michaud, J., and Hufford, R. 2015. Mechanisms underlying syntactic comprehension deficits in vascular aphasia: New evidence from self-paced listening. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 32(5), 283–313.Google Scholar
Caplan, D., and Waters, G. 2003. On-line syntactic processing in aphasia: Studies with auditory moving window presentation. Brain and Language, 84(2), 222–249.Google Scholar
Caplan, D., and Waters, G. 2005. The relationship between age, processing speed, working memory capacity, and language comprehension. Memory, 13(3–4), 403–413.Google Scholar
Caplan, D., Waters, G., Dede, G., Michaud, J., and Reddy, A. 2007. A study of syntactic processing in aphasia I: Behavioral (psycholinguistic) aspects. Brain and Language, 101(2), 103–150.Google Scholar
Caplan, D., and Waters, G. S. 1995. Aphasic disorders of syntactic comprehension and working memory capacity. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 12(6), 637–649.Google Scholar
Carminati, M. N. 2005. Processing reflexes of the Feature Hierarchy (Person > Number > Gender) and implications for linguistic theory. Lingua, 115(3), 259–285.Google Scholar
Carpenter, B., Gelman, A., Hoffman, M., Lee, D., Goodrich, B., Betancourt, M., Brubaker, M. A., Guo, J., Li, P., and Riddell, A. 2016. Stan: A probabilistic programming language. Journal of Statistical Software, 20, 1–37.Google Scholar
Carreiras, M., and Clifton, C. Jr. 1993. Relative clause interpretation preferences in Spanish and English. Language and Speech, 36(4), 353–372.Google Scholar
Carreiras, M., Duñabeitia, J. A., Vergara, M., de la Cruz-Pavía, I., and Laka, I. 2010. Subject relative clauses are not universally easier to process: Evidence from Basque. Cognition, 115(1), 79–92.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Li, C. N., ed., Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, pp. 25–56.Google Scholar
Cho, P. W., Goldrick, M., and Smolensky, P. 2017. Incremental parsing in a continuous dynamical system: Sentence processing in Gradient Symbolic Computation. Linguistics Vanguard, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0105.Google Scholar
Cho, S., and Thompson, C. K. 2010. What goes wrong during passive sentence production in agrammatic aphasia: An eyetracking study. Aphasiology, 24(12), 1576–1592.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Choy, J. Janet, and Thompson, C. K. 2010. Binding in agrammatic aphasia: Processing to comprehension. Aphasiology, 24(5), 551–579.Google Scholar
Clark, D. G. 2012. Storage costs and heuristics interact to produce patterns of aphasic sentence comprehension performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–19.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. 1962. The statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: A review. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65(3), 145.Google Scholar
Cowan, N. 2001. The magical number 4 in short-term memory: a reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 87–114.Google Scholar
Cowles, H. W., Walenski, M., and Kluender, R. 2007. Linguistic and cognitive prominence in anaphor resolution: Topic, contrastive focus and pronouns. Topoi, 26(1), 3–18.Google Scholar
Crescentini, C., and Stocco, A. 2005. Agrammatism as a failure in the lexical activation process. In Bara, B., Barsalou, L., and Bucciarelli, M., M., eds., Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Cunnings, I., and Felser, C. 2013. The role of working memory in the processing of reflexives. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(1–2), 188–219.Google Scholar
Cunnings, I., and Sturt, P. 2018. Retrieval interference and sentence interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language, 102, 16–27.Google Scholar
Daily, L. Z., Lovett, M. C., and Reder, L. M. 2001. Modeling individual differences in working memory performance: A source activation account. Cognitive Science, 25(3), 315–353.Google Scholar
Daneman, M., and Carpenter, P. A. 1980. Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(4), 450–466.Google Scholar
Demberg, V., and Keller, F. 2008. Data from eye-tracking corpora as evidence for theories of syntactic processing complexity. Cognition, 109(2), 193–210.Google Scholar
Dickey, M. W., Choy, J. J., and Thompson, C. K. 2007. Real-time comprehension of wh- movement in aphasia: Evidence from eyetracking while listening. Brain and Language, 100(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dickey, M. W., and Thompson, C. K. 2006. Automatic processing of wh- and NP-movement in agrammatic aphasia: Evidence from eyetracking. Brain and Language, 99(1–2), 63–64.Google Scholar
Dickey, M. W., and Thompson, C. K. 2009. Automatic processing of wh- and NP-movement in agrammatic aphasia: Evidence from eyetracking. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22(6), 563–583.Google Scholar
Dillon, B. 2011. Structured Access in Sentence Comprehension. PhD thesis, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Dillon, B., Mishler, A., Sloggett, S., and Phillips, C. 2013. Contrasting intrusion profiles for agreement and anaphora: Experimental and modeling evidence. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(2), 85–103.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W. 2003. Argument structure: Grammar in use. In Du Bois, J. W., Kumpf, L. E., and Ashby, W. J., eds., Studies in Discourse and Grammar. Vol. 14: Preferred Argument Structure: Grammar as Architecture for Function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 11–60.Google Scholar
Eberhard, K. M., Cutting, J. C., and Bock, K. 2005. Making syntax of sense: Number agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review, 112(3), 531.Google Scholar
Elman, J. L., Hare, M., and McRae, K. 2004. Cues, constraints, and competition in sentence processing. In Tomasello, M. and Slobin, D. I., eds., Beyond Nature– Nurture: Essays in Honor of Elizabeth Bates. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 111–138.Google Scholar
Engbert, R., Longtin, A., and Kliegl, R. 2002. A dynamical model of saccade generation in reading based on spatially distributed lexical processing. Vision Research, 42(5), 621–636.Google Scholar
Engbert, R., Nuthmann, A., Richter, E. M., and Kliegl, R. 2005. SWIFT: A dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. Psychological Review, 112(4), 777–813.Google Scholar
Engelmann, F. 2016. Toward an Integrated Model of Sentence Processing in Reading. Doctoral thesis, Universität Potsdam, Germany.Google Scholar
Engelmann, F., Jäger, L. A., and Vasishth, S. 2020. The effect of prominence and cue association in retrieval processes: A computational account. Cognitive Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12800.Google Scholar
Engelmann, F., and Vasishth, S. 2009. Processing grammatical and ungrammatical center embeddings in English and German: A computational model. In Howes, A., Peebles, D., and Cooper, R. P., eds., Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Cognitive Modeling, ICCM. University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Engelmann, F., Vasishth, S., Engbert, R., and Kliegl, R. 2013. A framework for modeling the interaction of syntactic processing and eye movement control. Topics in Cognitive Science, 5(3), 452–474.Google Scholar
Epstein, J. M. 2008. Why model? Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 11(4), 12.Google Scholar
Farrell, S., and Lewandowsky, S. 2018. Computational Modeling of Cognition and Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., Ferraro, V., and Bailey, K. G. D. 2002. Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11–15.Google Scholar
Ferrill, M., Love, T., Walenski, M., and Shapiro, L. P. 2012. The time-course of lexical activation during sentence comprehension in people with aphasia. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 21(2), 179–189.Google Scholar
Francis, W., and Kucera, H. 1982. Frequency Analysis of English Usage: Lexicon and Grammar. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Frank, S. 2009. Surprisal-based comparison between a symbolic and a connectionist model of sentence processing. In Taatgen, N. and van Rijn, H., eds., Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Amsterdam, pp. 1139–1144.Google Scholar
Frank, S. L., Trompenaars, T., and Vasishth, S. 2015. Cross-linguistic differences in processing double-embedded relative clauses: Working-memory constraints or language statistics? Cognitive Science, 40(3), 554–578.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frazier, L. 1979. On Comprehending Sentences: Syntactic Parsing Strategies. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. 1985. Syntactic complexity. In Dowty, David R., Kartunnen, Lauri, and Zwicky, Arnold M., eds., Natural Language Parsing: Psychological, Computational, and Theoretical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 129–189.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. 1987a. Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In Coltheart, M., ed., Attention and Performance 12: The Psychology of Reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 559–586.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. 1987b. Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5(4), 519–559.Google Scholar
Frazier, L., and Clifton, C. Jr. 1997. Construal: Overview, motivation, and some new evidence. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26(3), 277–295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frazier, L., and Rayner, K. 1982. Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14(2), 178–210.Google Scholar
Freedman, L. S., Lowe, D., and Macaskill, P. 1984. Stopping rules for clinical trials incorporating clinical opinion. Biometrics, 40(3), 575–586.Google Scholar
Friedman, J., Hastie, T., and Tibshirani, R. 2001. Springer Series in Statistics. Vol 1: The Elements of Statistical Learning. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Frühwirth-Schnatter, S. 2006. Finite Mixture and Markov Switching Models. New York: Springer Science and Business Media.Google Scholar
Fukumura, K., and van Gompel, R. P. G. 2011. The effect of animacy on the choice of referring expression. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(10), 1472–1504.Google Scholar
Gelman, A., and Carlin, J. 2014. Beyond power calculations assessing Type S (sign) and Type M (magnitude) errors. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(6), 641–651.Google Scholar
Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., Dunson, D. B., Vehtari, A., and Rubin, D. B. 2014. Bayesian Data Analysis, 3rd ed. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
Gennari, S. P., and MacDonald, M. C. 2009. Linking production and comprehension processes: The case of relative clauses. Cognition, 111(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A., and Hargreaves, D. J. 1988. Accessing sentence participants: The advantage of first mention. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 699–717.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68(1), 1–76.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. 2000. The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Marantz, A., Miyashita, Y., and O’Neil, W., eds., Image, Language, Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 95–126.Google Scholar
Gibson, E., Desmet, T., Grodner, D., Watson, D., and Ko, K. 2005. Reading relative clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(2), 313–353.Google Scholar
Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N., Canseco-Gonzales, E., and Hickock, G. 1996. Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism. Cognition, 59, 23–59.Google Scholar
Gibson, E., and Thomas, J. 1997. The complexity of nested structures in English: Evidence for the syntactic prediction locality theory of linguistic complexity. Unpublished manuscript, MIT.Google Scholar
Gibson, E., and Wu, H.-H. I. 2013. Processing Chinese relative clauses in context. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(1–2), 125–155.Google Scholar
Gigley, H. M. 1986. Studies in artificial aphasia: Experiments in processing change. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 22(1), 43–50.Google Scholar
Green, M. J., and Mitchell, D. C. 2006. Absence of real evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
Grodner, D., and Gibson, E. 2005. Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input. Cognitive Science, 29(2), 261–290.Google Scholar
Grodzinsky, Y. 1995. A restrictive theory of agrammatic comprehension. Brain and Language, 50(1), 27–51.Google Scholar
Grodzinsky, Y. 2000. The neurology of syntax: Language use without Broca's area. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(1), 1–71.Google Scholar
Grodzinsky, Y. 2006. The language faculty, Broca's region, and the mirror system. Cortex, 42(4), 464–468.Google Scholar
Grosz, B. J., Joshi, A. K., and Weinstein, S. 1995. Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21(2), 203–225.Google Scholar
Haarmann, H. J., Just, M. A., and Carpenter, P. A. 1997. Aphasic sentence comprehension as a resource deficit: A computational approach. Brain and Language, 59(1), 76–120.Google Scholar
Haarmann, H. J., and Kolk, H. H. J. 1991. A computer model of the temporal course of agrammatic sentence understanding: The effects of variation in severity and sentence complexity. Cognitive Science, 15(1), 49–87.Google Scholar
Hagoort, P., Brown, C. M., and Swaab, T. Y. 1996. Lexical-semantic event-related potential effects in patients with left hemisphere lesions and aphasia, and patients with right hemisphere lesions without aphasia. Brain, 119(2), 627–649.Google Scholar
Hale, J. T. 2001. A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. In Proceedings of the 2nd Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Pittsburgh: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 159–166.Google Scholar
Hale, J. T. 2011. What a rational parser would do. Cognitive Science, 35(3), 399–443.Google Scholar
Hammerly, C., Staub, A., and Dillon, B. 2019. The grammaticality asymmetry in agreement attraction reflects response bias: Experimental and modeling evidence. Cognitive Psychology, 110, 70–104.Google Scholar
Hanne, S., Sekerina, I. A., Vasishth, S., Burchert, F., and De Bleser, R. 2011. Chance in agrammatic sentence comprehension: What does it really mean? Evidence from eye movements of German agrammatic aphasics. Aphasiology, 25, 221–244.Google Scholar
Hickok, G., and Avrutin, S. 1995. Representation, referentiality, and processing in agrammatic comprehension: Two case studies. Brain and Language, 50(1), 10–26.Google Scholar
Hoenig, J. M., and Heisey, D. M. 2001. The abuse of power: The pervasive fallacy of power calculations for data analysis. American Statistician, 55(1), 19–24.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P. 2007. Representational Complexity and Memory Retrieval in Language Comprehension. PhD thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P. 2011. Representational complexity and memory retrieval in language comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(3), 376–405.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P., and Vasishth, S. 2014. Distinctiveness and encoding effects in online sentence comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–13. Article 1237. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01237.Google Scholar
Hsiao, F., and Gibson, E. 2003. Processing relative clauses in Chinese. Cognition, 90(1), 3–27.Google Scholar
Hsiao, Y., and MacDonald, M. C. 2013. Experience and generalization in a connectionist model of Mandarin Chinese relative clause processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(767). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00767.Google Scholar
Husain, S., Vasishth, S., and Srinivasan, N. 2014. Strong expectations cancel locality effects: Evidence from Hindi. PLoS ONE, 9(7), 1–14.Google Scholar
Husain, S., Vasishth, S., and Srinivasan, N. 2015. Integration and prediction difficulty in Hindi sentence comprehension: Evidence from an eye-tracking corpus. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 8 (2), 1–12.Google Scholar
Inhoff, A. W., and Weger, U. W. 2005. Memory for word location during reading: Eye movements to previously read words are spatially selective but not precise. Memory and Cognition, 33(3), 447–461.Google Scholar
Jäger, L. A., Chen, Z., Li, Q., Lin, C. J. C., and Vasishth, S. 2015. The subject-relative advantage in Chinese: Evidence for expectation-based processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 79, 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jäger, L. A., Engelmann, F., and Vasishth, S. 2015. Retrieval interference in reflexive processing: Experimental evidence from Mandarin, and computational modeling. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(617). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00617.Google Scholar
Jäger, L. A., Engelmann, F., and Vasishth, S. 2017. Similarity-based interference in sentence comprehension: Literature review and Bayesian meta-analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 316–339.Google Scholar
Jäger, L. A., Mertzen, D., Van Dyke, J. A., and Vasishth, S. 2020. Interference patterns in subject-verb agreement and reflexives revisited: A large-sample study. Journal of Memory and Language, 111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104063.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, D. 1996. A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science, 20, 137–194.Google Scholar
Just, M. A., and Carpenter, P. A. 1980. A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87(4), 329–354.Google Scholar
Just, M. A., and Carpenter, P. A. 1992. A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99(1), 122–149.Google Scholar
Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., and Varma, S. 1999. Computational modeling of high-level cognition and brain function. Human Brain Mapping, 8, 128–136.Google Scholar
Just, M. A., and Varma, S. 2002. A hybrid architecture for working memory: Reply to MacDonald and Christiansen (2002). Psychological Review, 109(1), 55–65.Google Scholar
Just, Marcel Adam, and Varma, Sashank. 2007. The organization of thinking: What functional brain imaging reveals about the neuroarchitecture of complex cognition. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(3), 153–191.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L., and Comrie, B. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(1), 63–99.Google Scholar
Kempen, G., and Vosse, T. 1989. Incremental syntactic tree formation in human sentence processing: A cognitive architecture based on activation decay and simulated annealing. Connection Science, 1(3), 273–290.Google Scholar
Kemper, S., Crow, A., and Kemtes, K. 2004. Eye fixation patterns of high and low span young and older adults: Down the garden path and back again. Psychology and Aging, 19, 157–170.Google Scholar
Keppel, G., and Underwood, B. J. 1962. Proactive inhibition in short-term retention of single items. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1, 153–161.Google Scholar
Kidd, E., Donnelly, S., and Christiansen, M. H. 2018. Individual differences in language acquisition and processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(2), 154–169.Google Scholar
King, J., and Just, M. A. 1991. Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(5), 580–602.Google Scholar
Kliegl, R., Grabner, E., Rolfs, M., and Engbert, R. 2004. Length, frequency, and predictability effects of words on eye movements in reading. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16(1), 262–284.Google Scholar
Kolk, H. H. J., and Van Grunsven, M. M. F. 1985. Agrammatism as a variable phenomenon. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 2(4), 347–384.Google Scholar
Konieczny, L. 2000. Locality and parsing complexity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(6), 627–645.Google Scholar
Konieczny, L., and Döring, P. 2003. Anticipation of clause-final heads: Evidence from eye-tracking and SRNs. In Slezak, P. P., ed., Proceedings of the ICCS/ASCS Joint International Conference on Cognitive Science. Sydney: University of New South Wales, pp. 330–335.Google Scholar
Kruschke, J. 2014. Doing Bayesian Data Analysis: A Tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kush, D., and Phillips, C. 2014. Local anaphor licensing in an SOV language: Implications for retrieval strategies. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(1252). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01252.Google Scholar
Kwon, N., Gordon, P. C., Lee, Y., Kluender, R., and Polinsky, M. 2010. Cognitive and linguistic factors affecting subject/object asymmetry: An eye-tracking study of prenominal relative clauses in Korean. Language, 86(3), 546–582.Google Scholar
Lago, S., Shalom, D. E., Sigman, M., Lau, E. F., and Phillips, C. 2015. Agreement attraction in Spanish comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 82, 133–149.Google Scholar
Laird, J. E. 2012. The Soar Cognitive Architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites, Vol. 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, J., and Thompson, C. K. 2011a. Real-time production of arguments and adjuncts in normal and agrammatic speakers. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(8), 985–1021.Google Scholar
Lee, J., and Thompson, C. K. 2011b. Real-time production of unergative and unaccusative sentences in normal and agrammatic speakers: An eyetracking study. Aphasiology, 25(6–7), 813–825.Google Scholar
Lee, M. D., and Wagenmakers, E.-J. 2014. Bayesian Cognitive Modeling: A Practical Course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Legge, G. E., Hooven, T. A., Klitz, T. S., Mansfield, S. J., and Tjan, B. S. 2002. Mr. Chips 2002: New insights from an ideal-observer model of reading. Vision Research, 42(18), 2219–2234.Google Scholar
Levy, R. 2008. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106, 1126–1177.Google Scholar
Levy, R., Fedorenko, E., Breen, M., and Gibson, E. 2012. The processing of extraposed structures in English. Cognition, 122(1), 12–36.Google Scholar
Levy, R., Fedorenko, E., and Gibson, E. 2013. The syntactic complexity of Russian relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(4), 461–495.Google Scholar
Levy, R., and Keller, F. 2013. Expectation and locality effects in German verb-final structures. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(2), 199–222.Google Scholar
Lewandowsky, S., Geiger, S. M., and Oberauer, K. 2008. Interference-based forgetting in verbal short-term memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 200–222.Google Scholar
Lewis, R. L. 1993. An Architecturally-Based Theory of Human Sentence Comprehension. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Lewis, R. L. 1996. Interference in short-term memory: The magical number two (or three) in sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 93–115.Google Scholar
Lewis, R. L. 2000. Cognitive modeling, symbolic. In Wilson, R. and Keil, F., eds., The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, R. L., and Vasishth, S. 2005. An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29(3), 375–419.Google Scholar
Lewis, R. L., Vasishth, S., and Van Dyke, J. A. 2006. Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(10), 447–454.Google Scholar
Lin, C.-J. C., and Bever, T. G. 2006. Subject preference in the processing of relative clauses in Chinese. In Baumer, D., Montero, D., and Scanlon, M., eds., Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 254–260.Google Scholar
Linzen, T., and Jaeger, T. F. 2016. Uncertainty and expectation in sentence processing: Evidence from subcategorization distributions. Cognitive Science, 40, 1382–1411.Google Scholar
Linzen, T., and Leonard, B. 2018. Distinct patterns of syntactic agreement errors in recurrent networks and humans. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.06882.Google Scholar
Lissón, Paula, van het Nederend, Mick, Nicenboim, Bruno, Paape, Dario, Pregla, Dorothea, Burchert, Frank, Stadie, Nicole, Caplan, David, and Vasishth, Shravan. 2021. A computational evaluation of two models of retrieval processes in sentence processing: The case of aphasia. Cognitive Science. Accepted pending minor revisions.Google Scholar
Logačev, P., and Vasishth, S. 2015. A multiple-channel model of task-dependent ambiguity resolution in sentence comprehension. Cognitive Science, 40, 266–298.Google Scholar
Logačev, P., and Vasishth, S. 2016. Understanding underspecification: A comparison of two computational implementations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(5), 996–1012.Google Scholar
Love, T., Swinney, D., Walenski, M., and Zurif, E. 2008. How left inferior frontal cortex participates in syntactic processing: Evidence from aphasia. Brain and Language, 107(3), 203–219.Google Scholar
Love, T., Swinney, D., and Zurif, E. B. 2001. Aphasia and the time-course of processing long-distance dependencies. Brain and Language, 79, 169–170.Google Scholar
Lovett, M. C., Reder, L. M., and Lebiere, C. 1999. Modeling working memory in a unified architecture. In Miyake, A. and Shah, P., eds., Models of Working Memory: Mechanisms of Active Maintenance and Executive Control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 135–182.Google Scholar
Lunn, D., Jackson, C., Spiegelhalter, D. J., Best, N., and Thomas, A. 2012. The BUGS Book: A Practical Introduction to Bayesian Analysis. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, M. C., and Christiansen, M. H. 2002. Reassessing working memory: Comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996). Psychological Review, 109(1), 35–54.Google Scholar
MacDonald, Maryellen C., Just, Marcel Adam, and Carpenter, Patricia A. 1992. Working memory constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity. Cognitive Psychology, 24(1), 56–98.Google Scholar
Mätzig, P., Vasishth, S., Engelmann, F., Caplan, D., and Burchert, F. 2018. A computational investigation of sources of variability in sentence comprehension difficulty in aphasia. Topics in Cognitive Science, 10(1), 161–174.Google Scholar
Mauner, G., Fromkin, V. A., and Cornell, T. L. 1993. Comprehension and acceptability judgments in agrammatism: Disruptions in the syntax of referential dependency. Brain and Language, 45(3), 340–370.Google Scholar
McElree, B. 1993. The locus of lexical preference effects in sentence comprehension: A time-course analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(4), 536–571.Google Scholar
McElree, B. 2000. Sentence comprehension is mediated by content-addressable memory structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(2), 111–123.Google Scholar
McElree, B. 2006. Accessing recent events. In Ross, B. H., ed., The Psychology of Learning and Motivation. Vol. 46: Advances in Research and Theory. San Diego, CA: Elsevier, pp. 155–200.Google Scholar
McElree, B., Foraker, S., and Dyer, L. 2003. Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 67–91.Google Scholar
McLachlan, G., and Peel, D. 2004. Finite mixture models. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
McRae, K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., and Tanenhaus, M. K. 1998. Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on-line sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 283–312.Google Scholar
Mertzen, Daniela, Dillon, Brian W., Engbert, Ralf, and Vasishth, Shravan. 2020a. A cross-linguistic investigation of retroactive similarity-based interference in sentence comprehension. Technical report.Google Scholar
Mertzen, Daniela, Dillon, Brian W., Engbert, Ralf, and Vasishth, Shravan. 2020b. An investigation of proactive and retroactive interference in sentence comprehension. Technical report.Google Scholar
Mertzen, Daniela, Laurinavichyute, Anna, Dillon, Brian W., Engbert, Ralf, and Vasishth, Shravan. 2020c. A cross-linguistic investigation of proactive, similarity-based retrieval interference in sentence comprehension: No support from English, German and Russian eye-tracking data. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Meseguer, E., Carreiras, M., and Clifton, C. Jr.. 2002. Overt reanalysis strategies and eye movements during the reading of mild garden path sentences. Memory and Cognition, 30(4), 551–561.Google Scholar
Meyer, A. M., Mack, J. E., and Thompson, C. K. 2012. Tracking passive sentence comprehension in agrammatic aphasia. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 25(1), 31–43.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. 1956. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A., and Chomsky, N. 1963. Finitary models of language users. In Luce, R. D., Bush, R. R., and Galanter, E., eds., Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 2. New York: John Wiley, pp. 419–492.Google Scholar
Mitchell, D. C., Cuetos, F., CorleyM. M. B., , and Brysbaert, M. 1995. Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (non-lexical) statistical records. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 469–488.Google Scholar
Mitchell, D. C., Shen, X., Green, M. J., and Hodgson, T. L. 2008. Accounting for regressive eye-movements in models of sentence processing: A reappraisal of the selective reanalysis hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(3), 266–293.Google Scholar
Miyake, A., Carpenter, P. A., and Just, M. A. 1994. A capacity approach to syntactic comprehension disorders: Making normal adults perform like aphasic patients. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 11(6), 671–717.Google Scholar
Nairne, J. S. 1988. A framework for interpreting recency effects in immediate serial recall. Memory and Cognition, 16(4), 343–352.Google Scholar
Nairne, J. S. 1990. A feature model of immediate memory. Memory and Cognition, 18(3), 251–269.Google Scholar
Newell, A. 1973. Production systems: Models of control structures. Technical report, DTIC.Google Scholar
Newell, A. 1978. Harpy, production systems and human cognition. Technical report, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
Nicenboim, B., Logačev, P., Gattei, C., and Vasishth, S. 2016. When high-capacity readers slow down and low-capacity readers speed up: Working memory differences in unbounded dependencies. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 280. Special Issue on Encoding and Navigating Linguistic Representations in Memory.Google Scholar
Nicenboim, B., and Vasishth, S. 2016. Statistical methods for linguistic research: Foundational Ideas – Part II. Language and Linguistics Compass, 10, 591–613.Google Scholar
Nicenboim, B., and Vasishth, S. 2018. Models of retrieval in sentence comprehension: A computational evaluation using Bayesian hierarchical modeling. Journal of Memory and Language, 99, 1–34.Google Scholar
Nicenboim, B., Vasishth, S., Engelmann, F., and Suckow, K. 2018. Exploratory and confirmatory analyses in sentence processing: A case study of number interference in German. Cognitive Science, 42, 1075–1100.Google Scholar
Nicenboim, B., Vasishth, S., and Rösler, F. 2020. Are words pre-activated probabilistically during sentence comprehension? Evidence from new data and a Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis using publicly available data. Neuropsychologia. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2020.107427.Google Scholar
Nicenboim, Bruno, Schad, Daniel, and Vasishth, Shravan. 2021. Introduction to Bayesian Data Analysis for Cognitive Science. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Under contract with Chapman and Hall/CRC Statistics in the Social and Behavioral Sciences Series.Google Scholar
Nicol, J. 1988. Coreference Processing during Sentence Comprehension. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Nilsson, M., and Nivre, J. 2010. Towards a data-driven model of eye movement control in reading. In Hale, J. T., ed., Proceedings of the 2010 Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics, ACL 2010. Uppsala, Sweden: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 63–71.Google Scholar
Novick, J. M., Trueswell, J. C., and Thompson-Schill, S. L. 2005. Cognitive control and parsing: Reexamining the role of Broca⣙s area in sentence comprehension. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 5(3), 263–281.Google Scholar
Oakley, J. E., and O’Hagan, A. 2010. SHELF: The Sheffield Elicitation Framework (Version 2.0). School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
Oberauer, K., and Kliegl, R. 2006. A formal model of capacity limits in working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 601–626.Google Scholar
Oberauer, K., and Lewandowsky, S. 2013. Evidence against decay in verbal working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(2), 380.Google Scholar
Oberauer, Klaus, and Lewandowsky, Stephan. 2014. Further evidence against decay in working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 73(1), 15–30.Google Scholar
O’Hagan, A., Buck, C. E., Daneshkhah, A., Eiser, J. R., Garthwaite, P. H., Jenkinson, D. J., Oakley, J. E., and Rakow, T. 2006. Uncertain Judgements: Eliciting Experts’ Probabilities. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Paape, Dario, Avetisyan, Serine, Lago, Sol, and Vasishth, Shravan. 2020. Modeling misretrieval and feature substitution in agreement attraction: A computational evaluation. Unpublished manuscript. https://psyarxiv.com/957e3/.Google Scholar
Palestro, J. J., Sederberg, P. B., Osth, A. F, Van Zandt, T., and Turner, B. M. 2018. Likelihood-Free Methods for Cognitive Science. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
Parker, D. 2019. Cue combinatorics in memory retrieval for anaphora. Cognitive Science, 43(3), e12715. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12715.Google Scholar
Parker, D., and Phillips, C. 2014. Selective priority for structure in memory retrieval. Proceedings of the 27th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. Columbus: Ohio State University, p. 100.Google Scholar
Parker, D., and Phillips, C. 2017. Reflexive attraction in comprehension is selective. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 272–290.Google Scholar
Parker, D., Shvartsman, M., and Van Dyke, J. A. 2017. The cue-based retrieval theory of sentence comprehension: New findings and new challenges. In Escobar, L., Torrens, V., and Parodi, T., eds., Language Processing and Disorders. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 121–144.Google Scholar
Patil, U., Hanne, S., Burchert, F., De Bleser, R., and Vasishth, S. 2016a. A computational evaluation of sentence comprehension deficits in aphasia. Cognitive Science, 40, 5–50.Google Scholar
Patil, U., Vasishth, S., and Kliegl, R. 2009. Compound effect of probabilistic disambiguation and memory retrievals on sentence processing: Evidence from an eye-tracking corpus. In Howes, A., Peebles, D., and Cooper, R. P., eds., Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Cognitive Modeling. University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Patil, U., Vasishth, S., and Lewis, R. L. 2012. Retrieval interference in syntactic processing: The case of reflexive binding in English. Manuscript submitted.Google Scholar
Patil, U., Vasishth, S., and Lewis, R. L. 2016b. Retrieval interference in syntactic processing: The case of reflexive binding in English. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 329. Special Issue on Encoding and Navigating Linguistic Representations in Memory.Google Scholar
Patson, N. D., and Husband, E. M. 2016. Misinterpretations in agreement and agreement attraction. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(5), 950–971.Google Scholar
Pearlmutter, N. J., Garnsey, S. M., and Bock, K. 1999. Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 427–456.Google Scholar
Peterson, L. R., and Peterson, M. J. 1959. Short-term retention of individual items. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 12–21.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., and Van Gompel, R. P. G. 2006. Syntactic parsing. In Traxler, M. J. and Gernsbacher, M. A., eds., Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 2nd ed. New York: Academic Press, pp. 455–503.Google Scholar
Platt, John R. 1964. Strong inference. Science, 146(3642), 347–353.Google Scholar
Prather, P. A., Zurif, E., Love, T., and Brownell, H. 1997. Speed of lexical activation in nonfluent Broca's aphasia and fluent Wernicke's aphasia. Brain and Language, 59(3), 391–411.Google Scholar
Pregla, Dorothea, Lissón, Paula, Vasishth, Shravan, Burchert, Frank, and Stadie, Nicole. 2020a. Variability in sentence comprehension in aphasia in German. Brain and Language. Under review.Google Scholar
Pregla, Dorothea, Lissón, Paula, Vasishth, Shravan, Stadie, Nicole, and Burchert, Frank. 2020b. Individual differences in visual world eye-tracking in aphasia in German. Technical report.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2012. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2016. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Raab, D. H. 1962. Statistical facilitation of simple reaction times. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, 24(5 Series II), 574–590.Google Scholar
Rabe, Maximilian M., Chandra, Johan, Krügel, André, Seelig, Stefan A., Vasishth, Shravan, and Engbert, Ralf. 2020. A Bayesian approach to dynamical modeling of eye-movement control in reading of normal, mirrored, and scrambled texts. Psychological Review. In press.Google Scholar
Rabovsky, M., and McRae, K. 2014. Simulating the N400 ERP component as semantic network error: Insights from a feature-based connectionist attractor model of word meaning. Cognition, 132(1), 68–89.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, N. E., and Schuler, W. 2017. Left-corner parsing with distributed associative memory produces surprisal and locality effects. Cognitive Science, 42(S4), 1009–1042. Special Issue in Sentence Processing.Google Scholar
Ratcliff, R. 1978. A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85(2), 59.Google Scholar
Rayner, K., Kambe, G., and Duffy, S. A. 2000. The effect of clause wrap-up on eye movements during reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A(4), 1061–80.Google Scholar
Reichle, E. D., Pollatsek, A., Fisher, D. L., and Rayner, K. 1998. Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. Psychological Review, 105(1), 125–157.Google Scholar
Reichle, E. D., Pollatsek, A., and Rayner, K. 2006. E-Z Reader: A cognitive-control, serial-attention model of eye-movement behavior during reading. Cognitive Systems Research, 7(1), 4–22.Google Scholar
Reichle, E. D., Rayner, K., and Pollatsek, A. 2003. The E-Z reader model of eye-movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26(4), 445–476.Google Scholar
Reichle, E. D., Warren, T., and McConnell, K. 2009. Using E-Z Reader to model the effects of higher-level language processing on eye movements during reading. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 16(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
Reilly, R. G., and Radach, R. 2006. Some empirical tests of an interactive activation model of eye movement control in reading. Cognitive Systems Research, 7(1), 34–55.Google Scholar
Rescorla, R. A., and Wagner, A. R. 1972. A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In Black, A. H. and Prokasy, W. F., eds., Classical Conditioning II: Current Research and Theory, Vol. 2. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, pp. 64–99.Google Scholar
Resnik, P. 1992. Left–corner parsing and psychological plausibility. In Proceedings of COLING, pp. 191–197.Google Scholar
Richter, E. M., Engbert, R., and Kliegl, R. 2006. Current advances in SWIFT. Cognitive Systems Research, 7, 23–33.Google Scholar
Roberts, S., and Pashler, H. 2000. How persuasive is a good fit? A comment on theory testing. Psychological Review, 107(2), 358–367.Google Scholar
Safavi, M. S., Husain, S., and Vasishth, S. 2016. Dependency resolution difficulty increases with distance in Persian separable complex predicates: Implications for expectation and memory-based accounts. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 403.Google Scholar
Salvucci, D. 2001. An integrated model of eye movements and visual encoding. Cognitive Systems Research, 1(4), 201–220.Google Scholar
Sanford, A. J., and Sturt, P. 2002. Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(9), 382–386.Google Scholar
Schad, D. J., Betancourt, M., and Vasishth, S. 2020a. Towards a principled Bayesian workflow: A tutorial for cognitive science. Psychological Methods, 26(1), 103–126.Google Scholar
Schad, D. J., Hohenstein, S., Vasishth, S., and Kliegl, R. 2020b. How to capitalize on a priori contrasts in linear (mixed) models: A tutorial. Journal of Memory and Language, 110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104038.Google Scholar
Schilling, H. E. H., Rayner, K., and Chumbley, J. I. 1998. Comparing naming, lexical decision, and eye fixation times: Word frequency effects and individual differences. Memory and Cognition, 26(6), 1270–1281.Google Scholar
Schneider, D. W., and Anderson, J. R. 2012. Modeling fan effects on the time course of associative recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 64(3), 127–160.Google Scholar
Schriefers, H., Friederici, A. D., and Kuhn, K. 1995. The processing of locally ambiguous relative clauses in German. Journal of Memory and Language, 34(4), 499–520.Google Scholar
Schwartz, M. F., Saffran, E. M., and Marin, O. S. M. 1980. The word order problem in agrammatism: I. Comprehension. Brain and Language, 10(2), 249–262.Google Scholar
Sisson, S. A., Fan, Y., and Beaumont, M. A. 2019. Handbook of Approximate Bayesian Computation. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
Smaldino, P. E. 2017. Models are stupid, and we need more of them. In Vallacher, Robin R., Read, Stephen J., and Nowak, Andrzej, eds., Computational Social Psychology. Routledge, pp. 311–331.Google Scholar
Smith, G., Franck, J., and Tabor, W. 2018. A self-organizing approach to subject-verb number agreement. Cognitive Science, 42(4)Suppl, 1043–1074.Google Scholar
Smith, G., and Vasishth, S. 2020. A principled approach to feature selection in models of sentence processing. Cognitive Science, 44(12). https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12918.Google Scholar
Spiegelhalter, D. J., Abrams, K. R., and Myles, J. P. 2004. Statistics in Practice. Vol. 13: Bayesian Approaches to Clinical Trials and Health-Care Evaluation. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Spiegelhalter, D. J., Freedman, L. S., and Parmar, M. K. B. 1994. Bayesian approaches to randomized trials. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society), 157(3), 357–387.Google Scholar
Spivey, M. J., and Tanenhaus, M. K. 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.Google Scholar
Stack, C. M. H., James, A. N., and Watson, D. G. 2018. A failure to replicate rapid syntactic adaptation in comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 46(6), 864–877.Google Scholar
Staub, A. 2010. Eye movements and processing difficulty in object relative clauses. Cognition, 116(1), 71–86.Google Scholar
Sternberg, S. 1966. High-speed scanning in human memory. Science, 153(3736), 652–654.Google Scholar
Sternberg, S. 1969. Memory-scanning: Mental processes revealed by reaction-time experiments. American Scientist, 57, 421–457.Google Scholar
Sturt, P. 2003. The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(3), 542–562.Google Scholar
Swaab, T. Y., Brown, C. M., and Hagoort, P. 1997. Spoken sentence comprehension in aphasia: Event-related potential evidence for a lexical integration deficit. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 39–66.Google Scholar
Swets, B., Desmet, T., Clifton, C. Jr., and Ferreira, F. 2008. Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading. Memory and Cognition, 36(1), 201–216.Google Scholar
Swinney, D., Zurif, E. B., Prather, P., and Love, T. 1996. Neurological distribution of processing operations underlying language comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 174–184.Google Scholar
Tabor, W., Galantucci, B., and Richardson, D. 2004. Effects of merely local syntactic coherence on sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 355–370.Google Scholar
Thompson, C. K., and Choy, J. 2009. Pronominal resolution and gap filling in agrammatic aphasia: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 38(3), 255–283.Google Scholar
Thompson, C. K., Dickey, M. W., and Choy, J. J. 2004. Complexity in the comprehension of wh-movement structures in agrammatic Broca's aphasia: Evidence from eyetracking. Brain and Language, 91(1), 124–125.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Account of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J. 2007. Working memory contributions to relative clause attachment processing: A hierarchical linear modeling analysis. Memory and Cognition, 35(5), 1107–1121.Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J. 2014. Trends in syntactic parsing: Anticipation, Bayesian estimation, and good-enough parsing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(11), 605–611.Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J., Morris, R. K., and Seely, R. E. 2002. Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 47(1), 69–90.Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., and Clifton, C. Jr. 1998. Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(4), 558–592.Google Scholar
Tucker, M. A., Idrissi, A., and Almeida, D. 2015. Representing number in the real-time processing of agreement: Self-paced reading evidence from Arabic. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(347). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00347.Google Scholar
Van Dyke, J. A. 2007. Interference effects from grammatically unavailable constituents during sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(2), 407–430.Google Scholar
Van Dyke, J. A., and Lewis, R. L. 2003. Distinguishing effects of structure and decay on attachment and repair: A cue-based parsing account of recovery from misanalyzed ambiguities. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(3), 285–316.Google Scholar
Van Dyke, J. A., and McElree, B. 2006. Retrieval interference in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(2), 157–166.Google Scholar
Van Dyke, J. A., and McElree, B. 2011. Cue-dependent interference in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 65(3), 247–263.Google Scholar
Van Dyke, J. A., Johns, C. L., and Kukona, A. 2014. Low working memory capacity is only spuriously related to poor reading comprehension. Cognition, 131(3), 373–403.Google Scholar
van Rij, J., van Rijn, H., and Hendriks, P. 2013. How WM load influences linguistic processing in adults: A computational model of pronoun interpretation in discourse. Topics in Cognitive Science, 5(3), 564–580.Google Scholar
Varma, S. 2016. The CAPS Family of Cognitive Architectures. In Chipman, S. E. F., (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Science. New York: Oxford University Press, p. 49.Google Scholar
Vasishth, S. 2015. A Meta-analysis of Relative Clause Processing in Mandarin Chinese Using Bias Modelling. MSc thesis, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sheffield, UK.Google Scholar
Vasishth, S. 2020. Using Approximate Bayesian Computation for estimating parameters in the cue-based retrieval model of sentence processing. MethodsX. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2020.100850.Google Scholar
Vasishth, S., Bruessow, S., Lewis, R. L., and Drenhaus, H. 2008. Processing polarity: How the ungrammatical intrudes on the grammatical. Cognitive Science, 32(4), 685–712.Google Scholar
Vasishth, S., Chen, Z., Li, Q., and Guo, G. 2013. Processing Chinese relative clauses: Evidence for the subject-relative advantage. PLoS ONE, 8(10), e77006. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077006.Google Scholar
Vasishth, S., Chopin, N., Ryder, R., and Nicenboim, B. 2017b. Modelling dependency completion in sentence comprehension as a Bayesian hierarchical mixture process: A case study involving Chinese relative clauses. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Conference, London.Google Scholar
Vasishth, S., and Drenhaus, H. 2011. Locality in German. Dialogue and Discourse, 2(1), 59–82.Google Scholar
Vasishth, S., and Gelman, A. 2019. How to embrace variation and accept uncertainty in linguistic and psycholinguistic data analysis. Submitted.Google Scholar
Vasishth, S., Jäger, L. A., and Nicenboim, B. 2017a. Feature overwriting as a finite mixture process: Evidence from comprehension data. In van Vugt, M. K., Banks, A., and Kennedy, W., eds., Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Cognitive Modeling. Coventry: University of Warwick.Google Scholar
Vasishth, S., and Lewis, R. L. 2006. Argument-head distance and processing complexity: Explaining both locality and antilocality effects. Language, 82(4), 767–794.Google Scholar
Vasishth, S., Mertzen, D., Jäger, L. A., and Gelman, A. 2018. The statistical significance filter leads to overoptimistic expectations of replicability. Journal of Memory and Language, 103, 151–175.Google Scholar
Vasishth, S., Nicenboim, B., Engelmann, F., and Burchert, F. 2019. Computational models of retrieval processes in sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23, 968–982.Google Scholar
Vasishth, S., Suckow, K., Lewis, R. L., and Kern, S. 2010. Short-term forgetting in sentence comprehension: Crosslinguistic evidence from head-final structures. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(4), 533–567.Google Scholar
Vehtari, A., Gelman, A., and Gabry, J. 2017. Practical Bayesian model evaluation using leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC. Statistics and Computing, 27(5), 1413–1432.Google Scholar
Vehtari, A., Ojanen, J., et al. 2012. A survey of Bayesian predictive methods for model assessment, selection and comparison. Statistics Surveys, 6, 142–228.Google Scholar
Villata, S., and Franck, J. 2016. Similarity-based interference in agreement comprehension and production: Evidence from object agreement. Manuscript.Google Scholar
von der Malsburg, T., Kliegl, R., and Vasishth, S. 2015. Determinants of scanpath regularity in reading. Cognitive Science, 39(7), 1675–1703.Google Scholar
von der Malsburg, T., and Vasishth, S. 2011. What is the scanpath signature of syntactic reanalysis? Journal of Memory and Language, 65(2), 109–127.Google Scholar
von der Malsburg, T., and Vasishth, S. 2013. Scanpaths reveal syntactic underspecification and reanalysis strategies. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(10), 1545–1578.Google Scholar
Vosse, T., and Kempen, G. A. M. 2000. Syntactic structure assembly in human parsing: A computational model based on competitive inhibition and lexicalist grammar. Cognition, 75, 105–143.Google Scholar
Wagers, M. W., Lau, E. F., and Phillips, C. 2009. Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(2), 206–237.Google Scholar
Warren, T., and McConnell, K. 2007. Investigating effects of selectional restriction violations and plausibility violation severity on eye-movements in reading. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14(4), 770–775.Google Scholar
Warren, T. C., and Gibson, E. 2005. Effects of NP-type on reading English clefts. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20(6), 751–767.Google Scholar
Wasserstein, R. L., and Lazar, N. A. 2016. The ASA's Statement on p-Values: context, process, and purpose. American Statistician, 70(2), 129–133.Google Scholar
Watkins, O. C., and Watkins, M. J. 1975. Buildup of proactive inhibition as a cueoverload effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 104(4), 442–452.Google Scholar
Waugh, N. C., and Norman, D. A. 1965. Primary memory. Psychological Review, 72, 89–104.Google Scholar
Weger, U. W., and Inhoff, A. W. 2007. Long-range regressions to previously read words are guided by spatial and verbal memory. Memory and Cognition, 35(6), 1293–1306.Google Scholar
Wells, J. B., Christiansen, M. H., Race, D. S., Acheson, D. J., and MacDonald, M. C. 2009. Experience and sentence processing: Statistical learning and relative clause comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 250–271.Google Scholar
Wu, F., Kaiser, E., and Vasishth, S. 2017. Effects of early cues on the processing of Chinese relative clauses: Evidence for experience-based theories. Cognitive Science, 42, 1101–1133.Google Scholar
Yadav, Himanshu, Smith, Garrett, Paape, Dario, and Vasishth, Shravan. 2020. Modeling individual differences in sentence comprehension. In Proceedings of the Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing Conference, Potsdam, Germany.Google Scholar
Yee, E., Blumstein, S. E., and Sedivy, J. C. 2008. Lexical-semantic activation in Broca's and Wernicke's aphasia: evidence from eye movements. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(4), 592–612.Google Scholar
Yngve, V. H. 1960. A model and an hypothesis for language structure. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 104, 444–466.Google Scholar
Zurif, E. B., Swinney, D., Prather, P., and Love, T. 1994. Functional localization in the brain with respect to syntactic processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 487–497.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Bibliography
  • Shravan Vasishth, Universität Potsdam, Germany, Felix Engelmann, Universität Potsdam, Germany
  • Book: Sentence Comprehension as a Cognitive Process
  • Online publication: 29 October 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316459560.015
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Bibliography
  • Shravan Vasishth, Universität Potsdam, Germany, Felix Engelmann, Universität Potsdam, Germany
  • Book: Sentence Comprehension as a Cognitive Process
  • Online publication: 29 October 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316459560.015
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Bibliography
  • Shravan Vasishth, Universität Potsdam, Germany, Felix Engelmann, Universität Potsdam, Germany
  • Book: Sentence Comprehension as a Cognitive Process
  • Online publication: 29 October 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316459560.015
Available formats
×