Retrieval interference in reflexive processing: experimental evidence from Mandarin, and computational modeling

Abstract

We conducted two eye-tracking experiments investigating the processing of the Mandarin reflexive ziji in order to tease apart structurally constrained accounts from standard cue-based accounts of memory retrieval. In both experiments, we tested whether structurally inaccessible distractors that fulfill the animacy requirement of ziji influence processing times at the reflexive. In Experiment 1, we manipulated animacy of the antecedent and a structurally inaccessible distractor intervening between the antecedent and the reflexive. In conditions where the accessible antecedent mismatched the animacy cue, we found inhibitory interference whereas in antecedent-match conditions, no effect of the distractor was observed. In Experiment 2, we tested only antecedent-match configurations and manipulated locality of the reflexive-antecedent binding (Mandarin allows non-local binding). Participants were asked to hold three distractors (animate vs. inanimate nouns) in memory while reading the target sentence. We found slower reading times when animate distractors were held in memory (inhibitory interference). Moreover, we replicated the locality effect reported in previous studies. These results are incompatible with structure-based accounts. However, the cue-based ACT-R model of Lewis and Vasishth (2005) cannot explain the observed pattern either. We therefore extend the original ACT-R model and show how this model not only explains the data presented in this article, but is also able to account for previously unexplained patterns in the literature on reflexive processing.

Similarity-based interference in sentence comprehension: Literature review and Bayesian meta-analysis

“…Although there is considerable evidence for the fan effect affecting dependency processing (Badecker & Straub, 2002;Z. Chen, Jäger, & Vasishth, 2012;Felser, Sato, & Bertenshaw, 2009;Jäger et al, 2015;Van Dyke, 2007;Van Dyke & Lewis, 2003;Van Dyke & McElree, 2006, 2011 it is still unclear how robust this RETRIEVAL INTERFERENCE: META-ANALYSIS 11 finding is, as there is also evidence for effects in the opposite direction (Cunnings & Felser, 2013;Sturt, 2003), as well as a series of statistically non-significant results. Theoretically, it is also under debate whether the parser indeed relies on a cue-based retrieval mechanism and if yes, whether it does so for all kinds of dependencies or only for certain kinds of dependencies (Dillon et al, 2013).…”

“…(ii) Antecedent-reflexive dependencies (Dillon et al, 2013;Jäger, Engelmann, & Vasishth, 2015;Parker & Phillips, 2014;Patil, Vasishth, & Lewis, 2016) and antecedent-reciprocal dependencies (Kush, 2013;Kush & Phillips, 2014);…”

Interference patterns in subject-verb agreement and reflexives revisited: A large-sample study

“…1 This model was developed within the general cognitive architecture, Adaptive Control of Thought-Rational (ACT-R, Anderson et al 2004). Cuebased retrieval models can explain interference effects (Dillon et al, 2013;Jäger, Engelmann, & Vasishth, 2015;Kush & Phillips, 2014;Nicenboim, Logačev, Gattei, & Vasishth, 2016;Nicenboim, Vasishth, Engelmann, & Suckow, 2018;Parker & Phillips, 2016Patil, Vasishth, & Lewis, 2016;Vasishth, Bruessow, Lewis, & Drenhaus, 2008), but they have also been invoked in connection with a range of other issues in sentence processing: the interaction between predictive processing and memory (Boston, Hale, Vasishth, & Kliegl, 2011), impairments in individuals with aphasia (Mätzig, Vasishth, Engelmann, Caplan, & Burchert, 2018;Patil, Hanne, Burchert, Bleser, & Vasishth, 2016), the interaction between oculomotor control and sentence comprehension (Dotlačil, 2018;Engelmann, Vasishth, Engbert, & Kliegl, 2013), the processing of ellipsis (Martin & McElree, 2009;Parker, 2018), the effect of working memory capacity differences on underspecification and "good-enough" processing (Engelmann, 2016;von der Malsburg & Vasishth, 2013), and the interaction between discourse/semantic processes and cognition (Brasoveanu & Dotlačil, 2019). The source code of the model used in this paper is available from https://github.com/felixengelmann/inter-act; and quantitative predictions can be derived graphically using the Shiny App available from https://engelmann.shinyapps.io/inter-act/.…”

Toward Cognitively Constrained Models of Language Processing: A Review

“…This model is a seminal model forming the basis for many later language processing models (a.o., Salvucci and Taatgen, 2008;Engelmann et al, 2013;Jäger et al, 2015). Lewis and Vasishth's (Lewis and Vasishth, 2005) sentenced processing model (henceforth the L&V model) performs syntactic parsing based on memory principles: when processing a complete sentence, maintaining the part of the sentence that is already processed in order to integrate it with new incoming information requires (working) memory.…”