Dynamical Cognitive Modeling of Syntactic Processing and Eye Movement Control in Reading

Rabe, Maximilian M.; Paape, Dario; Vasishth, Shravan; Engbert, Ralf

doi:10.31234/osf.io/w89zt

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 30 publications

(48 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We focus only on the critical region because, strictly speaking, the model's predictions are for this region only: the retrieval of the subject NP should be triggered when the verb is read. In order to fully interpret interference effects that occur before or after the verb, a more sophisticated understanding of the eye-parser relationship is needed, which is beyond the current capabilities of the Lewis & Vasishth model (see Rabe et al, 2023).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Syntactic and semantic interference in sentence comprehension: Support from English and German eye-tracking data

Mertzen¹,

Paape²,

Dillon³

et al. 2023

Glossa Psycholinguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A long-standing debate in the sentence processing literature concerns the time course of syntactic and semantic information processing in online sentence comprehension. The default assumption in cue-based models of parsing is that syntactic and semantic retrieval cues simultaneously guide dependency resolution. When retrieval cues match multiple items in memory, this leads to similarity-based interference. Both semantic and syntactic interference have been shown to occur in English. However, the relative timing of syntactic vs. semantic interference remains unclear. In this cross-linguistic investigation of the time course of syntactic vs. semantic interference, the data from two eye-tracking during reading experiments (English and German) suggest that the two types of interference can in principle arise simultaneously during retrieval. However, the data also indicate that semantic cues are evaluated with a small timing lag in German compared to English. This cross-linguistic difference between English and German may be due to German having richer morphosyntactic marking than English, resulting in syntactic cues dominating over semantic cues during dependency resolution. More broadly, our cross-linguistic results pose a challenge for the cue-based retrieval model’s default assumption that syntactic and semantic cues are used simultaneously during long-distance dependency formation. Our work also highlights the importance of collecting cross-linguistic data on psycholinguistic phenomena which can potentially advance theory development.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Syntactic and semantic interference in sentence comprehension: Support from English and German eye-tracking data

Mertzen¹,

Paape²,

Dillon³

et al. 2023

Glossa Psycholinguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We chose these three measures because these are the reading time measures reported in Van Dyke (2007). First-pass regressions were also reported in Van Dyke ( 2007), but mapping first-pass regression probability to latent higher-level cognitive processes requires a more sophisticated modeling environment incorporating low-level eye-movement control processes; such an environment is currently under development (Rabe, Paape, et al, 2021;Rabe, Chandra, et al, 2021).…”

Section: Predictionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Syntactic and semantic interference in sentence comprehension: Support from English and German eye-tracking data

Mertzen¹,

Paape²,

Dillon³

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A long-standing debate in the sentence processing literature concerns the time course of syntactic and semantic information in online sentence comprehension. The default assumption in cue-based models of parsing is that syntactic and semantic retrieval cues simultaneously guide dependency resolution. When retrieval cues match multiple items in memory, this leads to similarity-based interference. Both semantic and syntactic interferencehave been shown to occur in English. However, the relative timing of syntactic vs. semantic interference remains unclear. In this first-ever cross-linguistic investigation of the time course of syntactic vs. semantic interference, the data from two eye-tracking reading experiments (English and German) suggest that the two types of interference can in principle arise simultaneously during retrieval. However, the data also indicate that semantic cues may be evaluated with a small timing lag in German compared to English. This suggests that there may be cross-linguistic variation in how syntactic and semantic cues are used to resolve linguistic dependencies in real-time.

show abstract

“…There are two parameters that we need to model to fit the reading model to the corpus data: F and f . We will estimate them using Bayesian techniques (see Dotlačil, 2018 , Brasoveanu and Dotlačil, 2018 , Brasoveanu and Dotlačil, 2019 , Brasoveanu and Dotlačil, 2020 ; Rabe et al, 2021 for other examples of combining Bayesian modeling with ACT-R cognitive models; see Weaver, 2008 ; Dotlačil, 2018 for arguments why this is necessary).…”

Section: Modeling Reading Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Parsing Model and a Rational Theory of Memory

Dotlačil

Haan

2021

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores how the rational theory of memory summarized in Anderson (1991) can inform the computational psycholinguistic models of human parsing. It is shown that transition-based parsing is particularly suitable to be combined with Anderson's theory of memory systems. The combination of the rational theory of memory with the transition-based parsers results in a model of sentence processing that is data-driven and can be embedded in the cognitive architecture Adaptive Control of Thought-Rational (ACT-R). The predictions of the parser are tested against qualitative data (garden-path sentences) and a self-paced reading corpus (the Natural Stories corpus).

show abstract

Dynamical Cognitive Modeling of Syntactic Processing and Eye Movement Control in Reading

Cited by 4 publications

References 30 publications

Syntactic and semantic interference in sentence comprehension: Support from English and German eye-tracking data

Syntactic and semantic interference in sentence comprehension: Support from English and German eye-tracking data

Syntactic and semantic interference in sentence comprehension: Support from English and German eye-tracking data

Parsing Model and a Rational Theory of Memory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About