A “bag-of-arguments” mechanism for initial verb predictions

References

• Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247–264. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00059-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bar, M. (2007). The proactive brain: Using analogies and associations to generate predictions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(7), 280–289. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2007.05.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bendixen, A., Schröger, E., & Winkler, I. (2009). I heard that coming: Event-related potential evidence for stimulus-driven prediction in the auditory system. Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 8447–8451. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1493-09.2009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bicknell, K., Elman, J. L., Hare, M., McRae, K., & Kutas, M. (2010). Effects of event knowledge in processing verbal arguments. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 489–505. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2010.08.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boland, J. E., Tanenhaus, M. K., Garnsey, S. M., and Carlson, G. (1995). Verb argument structure in parsing and interpretation: Evidence from wh-questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 774–806. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1995.1034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2008). An alternative perspective on “semantic P600” effects in language comprehension. Brain Research Reviews, 59, 55–73. doi: 10.1016/j.brainresrev.2008.05.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brouwer, H., Fitz, H., & Hoeks, J. (2012). Getting real about semantic illusions: Rethinking the functional role of the P600 in language comprehension. Brain Research, 1446, 127–143. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2012.01.055
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chow, W. Y., Lau, E., Wang, S., & Phillips, C. (submitted). Timing is everything: The temporal dynamics of word prediction.
   Google Scholar
• Chow, W. Y., & Phillips, C. (2013). No semantic illusions in the “Semantic P600” phenomenon: ERP evidence from Mandarin Chinese. Brain Research, 1506, 76–93. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2013.02.016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deacon, D., Hewitt, S., Yang, C. M., & Nagata, M. (2000). Event-related potential indices of semantic priming using masked and unmasked words: Evidence that the N400 does not reflect a post-lexical process. Cognitive Brain Research, 9, 137–146. doi: 10.1016/S0926-6410(99)00050-6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Deerwester, S., Dumais, S. T., Furnas, G. W., Landauer, T. K., & Harshman, R. (1990). Indexing by latent semantic analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(6), 391–407. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199009)41:6<391::AID-ASI1>3.0.CO;2-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2005). Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 1117–1121. doi: 10.1038/nn1504
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demberg, V., Keller, F. (2008). Data from eye-tracking corpora as evidence for theories of syntactic processing complexity. Cognition, 109, 193–210. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dikker, S., Rabagliati, H., & Pylkkänen, L. (2009). Sensitivity to syntax in visual cortex. Cognition, 110, 293–321. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.09.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Federmeier, K. D., & Kutas, M. (1999). A rose by any other name: Long-term memory structure and sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 469–495. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1999.2660
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Federmeier, K. D., Wlotko, E. W., De Ochoa-Dewald, E., & Kutas, M. (2007). Multiple effects of sentential constraint on word processing. Brain Research, 1146, 75–84. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.06.101
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garnsey, S. M., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Chapman, R. M. (1989). Evoked potentials and the study of sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 51–60. doi: 10.1007/BF01069046
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerlanc, D., Kirby, K. N. (2013). bootES (Version 1.0.1). Retrieved from http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/bootES/index.html
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, E., Stearns, L., Bergen, L., Eddy, M., & Fedorenko, E. (2013). The P600 indexes rational error correction within a noisy-channel model of human communication. Talk presented at the 26th annual CUNY Human Sentence Processing Conference, Columbia, SC.
   Google Scholar
• Greenhouse, S. W., & Geisser, S. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika, 24, 95–112. doi: 10.1007/BF02289823
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagoort, P., Hald, L., Bastiaansen, M., & Petersson, K. M. (2004). Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science, 304, 438–441. doi: 10.1126/science.1095455
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hale, J. (2001). A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. In Proceedings of NAACL-2001 (pp. 159–166). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Hickok, G., Canseco-Gonzalez, E., Zurif, E., & Grimshaw, J. (1992). Modularity in locating wh-gaps. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 21(6), 545–561.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoeks, J. C. J., Stowe, L. A., Doedens, G. (2004). Seeing words in context: The interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading. Cognitive Brain Research, 19, 59–73. doi: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2003.10.022
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 434–446. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, A., & Sikos, L. (2011). Conflict and surrender during sentence processing: An ERP study of syntax-semantics interaction. Brain and Language, 118, 15–22. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2011.03.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuperberg, G. K. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research, 1146, 23–49. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.12.063
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolk, H. H. J., Chwilla, D. J., van Herten, M., & Oor, P. (2003). Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 85, 1–36. doi: 10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00548-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kos, M., Vosse, T., van den Brink, D., Hagoort, P. (2010). About edible restaurants: Conflicts between syntax and semantics as revealed by ERPs. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 222. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00222
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kukona, A., Fang, S., Aicher, K. A., Chen, H., & Magnuson, J. S. (2011). The time course of anticipatory constraint integration. Cognition, 119, 23–42. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.12.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 463–470. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01560-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 621–647. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207, 203–205. doi: 10.1126/science.7350657
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307, 161–163. doi: 10.1038/307161a0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104(2), 211–240. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.211
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25(2–3), 259–284. doi: 10.1080/01638539809545028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lau, E. F., Phillips, C., & Poeppel, D. (2008). A cortical network for semantics: (de)constructing the N400. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, 920–933. doi: 10.1038/nrn2532
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106, 1126–1177. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M. S., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2008). When the truth isn't too hard to handle: An event-related potential study on the pragmatics of negation. Psychological Science, 19, 1213–1218. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02226.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oishi, H., & Sakamoto, T. (2010). Immediate interaction between syntactic and semantic outputs: Evidence from event-related potentials in Japanese sentence processing. Poster presented at the 22nd annual CUNY Human Sentence Processing Conference, Davis, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97–113. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Omaki, A., Lau, E. F., Davidson White, I., Dakan, M. L., Apple, A., & Phillips, C. (2015). Hyper-active gap filling. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 384. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00384
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 785–806. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(92)90039-Z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Otten, M., Nieuwland, M. S., & van Berkum, J. J. A. (2007). Great expectations: Specific lexical anticipation influences the processing of spoken language. BMC Neuroscience, 8, 89. doi: 10.1186/1471-2202-8-89
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paczynski, M., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2012). Multiple influences of semantic memory on sentence processing: Distinct effects of semantic relatedness on violations of real-world event/state knowledge and animacy selection restrictions. Journal of Memory and Language, 67(4), 426–448. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.07.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, N. J., & Levy, R. (2013). The effect of word predictability on reading time is logarithmic. Cognition, 128, 302–319. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.02.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stroud, C. (2008). Structural and semantic selectivity in the electrophysiology of sentence comprehension (PhD dissertation). University of Maryland, Maryland.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, W. L. (1953). “Cloze procedure”: A new tool for measuring readability. Journalism Quarterly 30, 415–433.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2009). The neuropragmatics of “simple” utterance comprehension: An ERP review. In U. Sauerland & K. Yatsushiro (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: From experiment to theory (pp. 276–316). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C. M., Zwitserlood, P., Kooijman, V., & Hagoort, P. (2005). Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: Evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(3), 443–467.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Herten, M., Chwilla, D. J., & Kolk, H. H. (2006). When heuristics clash with parsing routines: ERP evidence for conflict monitoring in sentence perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1181–1197. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.7.1181
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Herten, M., Kolk, H. H., & Chwilla, D. J. (2005). An ERP study of P600 effects elicited by semantic anomalies. Cognitive Brain Research, 22, 241–255. doi: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.09.002
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Van Petten, C., Luka, B. J. (2012). Prediction during language comprehension: Benefits, costs, and ERP components. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 83, 176–190. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.09.015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wicha, N. Y. Y., Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2004). Anticipating words and their gender: An event-related brain potential study of semantic integration, gender expectancy, and gender agreement in Spanish sentence reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 1272–1288. doi: 10.1162/0898929041920487
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wlotko, E. W., & Federmeier, K. D. (2012). So that's what you meant! Event-related potentials reveal multiple aspects of context use during construction of message-level meaning. Neuroimage, 62, 356–366. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.054
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolpert, D. M. (1997). Computational approaches to motor control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1, 209–216. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(97)01070-X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar