Understanding underspecification: A comparison of two computational implementations

References

• Carreiras, M., & Clifton, C. (1993). Relative clause interpretation preferences in spanish and english. Language and Speech, 36(4), 353–372.
   Google Scholar
• Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J. F., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42(4), 368–407. doi: 10.1006/cogp.2001.0752
   Google Scholar
• Christianson, K., Luke, S. G., & Ferreira, F. (2010). Effects of plausibility on structural priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(2), 538–544.
   Google Scholar
• Cousineau, D. (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.
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47(2), 164–203. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00005-7
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G. D., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 11–15. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00158
   Google Scholar
• Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. J. (1997). Construal: Overview, motivation, and some new evidence. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26(3), 277–295. doi: 10.1023/A:1025024524133
   Google Scholar
• Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106(3), 1126–1177. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006
   Google Scholar
• Levy, R., Bicknell, K., Slattery, T., & Rayner, K. (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
   Google Scholar
• Logačev, P., & Vasishth, S. (2015). A multiple-channel model of task-dependent ambiguity resolution in sentence comprehension. Cognitive Science. doi:10.1111/cogs.12228.
   Google Scholar
• Luce, R. D. (1986). Response times: Their role in inferring elementary mental organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lynch, S. M. (2007). Introduction to applied bayesian statistics and estimation for social scientists. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Morey, R. D. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorial in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4(2), 61–64.
   Google Scholar
• Sanford, A. J., & Sturt, P. (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
   Google Scholar
• Spivey, M. J., & 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
• Spivey-Knowlton, M. K. (1996). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension (Doctoral dissertation). Unversity of Rochester.
   Google Scholar
• Stan Development Team. (2015). Stan: a c++ library for probability and sampling, version 2.7.0.
   Google Scholar
• Sturt, P., & Crocker, M. (1997). Thematic monotonicity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26(3), 297–322. doi: 10.1023/A:1025076608204
   Google Scholar
• Swets, B., Desmet, T., Clifton, C., & Ferreira, F. (2008). Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading. Memory and Cognition, 36(1), 201–216. doi: 10.3758/MC.36.1.201
   Google Scholar
• Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., & Clifton, C. (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
   Google Scholar
• van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (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.
   Google Scholar
• Vehtari, A., & Gelman, A. (2014). Waic and cross-validation in Stan. Submitted. Retrieved from http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/waicstan.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Watanabe, S. (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.
   Google Scholar