What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension?

References

• Allopenna, P. D., Magnuson, J. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models. Journal of Memory and Language, 38(4), 419–439. doi:10.1006/jmla.1997.2558
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altmann, G. T. (1999). Thematic role assignment in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(1), 124–145. doi:10.1006/jmla.1999.2640
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altmann, G. T., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73(3), 247–264. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00059-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altmann, G. T., & Kamide, Y. (2007). The real-time mediation of visual attention by language and world knowledge: Linking anticipatory (and other) eye movements to linguistic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(4), 502–518.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altmann, G. T., & Mirkovic, J. (2009). Incrementality and prediction in human sentence processing. Cognitive Science, 33(4), 583–609. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01022.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altmann, G. T., & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30(3), 191–238. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(88)90020-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, J. R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Arai, M., & Keller, F. (2013). The use of verb-specific information for prediction in sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(4), 525–560. doi:10.1080/01690965.2012.658072
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnal, L. H., & Giraud, A. L. (2012). Cortical oscillations and sensory predictions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(7), 390–398. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2012.05.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. E., Kam, C. L., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2007). If you say thee uh you are describing something hard: The on-line attribution of disfluency during reference comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(5), 914–930. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.33.5.914
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnon, I., & Snider, N. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(1), 67–82. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Attwell, D., & Laughlin, S. B. (2001). An energy budget for signaling in the grey matter of the brain. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism, 21(10), 1133–1145. doi:10.1097/00004647-200110000-00001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balota, D. A., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (1985). The interaction of contextual constraints and parafoveal visual information in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 17(3), 364–390. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(85)90013-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becker, C. A. (1980). Semantic context effects in visual word recognition: An analysis of semantic strategies. Memory and Cognition, 8(6), 493–512. doi:10.3758/BF03213769
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becker, C. A. (1985). What do we really know about semantic context effects during reading? In D. Besner, T. G. Waller, & E. M. MacKinnon (Eds.), Reading research: Advances in theory and practice (Vol. 5, pp. 125–166). Toronto: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bejjanki, V. R., Clayards, M., Knill, D. C., & Aslin, R. N. (2011). Cue integration in categorical tasks: Insights from audio-visual speech perception. PloS One, 6(5), e19812. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0019812
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 279–362). New York, NY: John Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Bicknell, K. (2011). Eye movements in reading as rational behavior (PhD dissertation). University of California, San Diego.
   Google Scholar
• Bicknell, K., & Levy, R. (2010). A rational model of eye movement control in reading. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 48th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL ‘10), Uppsala, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Bicknell, K., & Levy, R. (2012). The utility of modeling word identification from visual input within models of eye movements in reading. Visual Cognition, 20(4–5), 422–456. doi:10.1080/13506285.2012.668144
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bicknell, K., Levy, R., & Demberg, V. (2009). Correcting the incorrect: Local coherence effects modeled with prior belief update. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 35th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS).
   Google Scholar
• Bicknell, K., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Jaeger, T. F. (2015). Listeners can maintain and rationally update uncertainty about prior words. Manuscript submitted for publication.
   Google Scholar
• Bock, J. K. (1987). Exploring levels of processing in sentence production. In G. Kempen (Ed.), Natural language generation (pp. 351–363). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.
   Google Scholar
• Bock, J. K., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Language production: Grammatical encoding. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 945–984). London: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Booth, T. L. (1969). Probabilistic representation of formal languages. Paper presented at the IEEE conference record of 10th annual symposium on Switching and Automata Theory, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2009). The role of prominence information in the real-time comprehension of transitive constructions: A cross-linguistic approach. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 19–58. doi:10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00099.x
   Google Scholar
• Boston, M., Hale, J., Kliegl, R., Patil, U., & 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandl, H., Wrede, B., Joublin, F., & Goerick, C. (2008). A self-referential childlike model to acquire phones, syllables and words from acoustic speech. Paper presented at the 7th IEEE international conference on Development and Learning, Monterey, CA.
   Google Scholar
• van den Broek, P., Lorch, R. F., Linderholm, T., & Gustafson, M. (2001). The effects of readers’ goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory and Cognition, 29(8), 1081–1087. doi:10.3758/bf03206376
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brothers, T., Swaab, T. Y., & Traxler, M. J. (2015). Effects of prediction and contextual support on lexical processing: Prediction takes precedence. Cognition, 136, 135–149. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.10.017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, M., & Kuperberg, G. R. (in press). A hierarchical generative framework of language processing: Linking language perception, interpretation, and production abnormalities in schizophrenia. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience.
   Google Scholar
• Brown-Schmidt, S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2008). Real-time investigation of referential domains in unscripted conversation: A targeted language game approach. Cognitive Science, 32(4), 643–684. doi:10.1080/03640210802066816
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown-Schmidt, S., Yoon, S. O., & Ryskin, R. A. (2015). People as contexts in conversation. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 62, 59–99. doi:10.1016/bs.plm.2014.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bush, R. R., & Mosteller, F. (1951). A mathematical model for simple learning. Psychological Review, 58(5), 313–323.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camblin, C. C., Ledoux, K., Boudewyn, M., Gordon, P. C., & Swaab, T. Y. (2007). Processing new and repeated names: Effects of coreference on repetition priming with speech and fast RSVP. Brain Research, 1146, 172–184. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2006.07.033
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cedergren, H. J., & Sankoff, D. (1974). Variable rules: Performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Language, 50(2), 333–355. doi:10.2307/412441
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers, C., Tanenhaus, M. K., Eberhard, K., Filip, H., & Carlson, G. N. (2002). Circumscribing referential domains during real-time language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 47(1), 30–49. doi:10.1006/jmla.2001.2832
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers, C. G., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Magnuson, J. S. (2004). Actions and affordances in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(3), 687–696. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.30.3.687
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang, F., Dell, G. S., & Bock, J. K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review, 113(2), 234–272. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.113.2.234
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chater, N., Crocker, M. W., & Pickering, M. J. (1998). The rational analysis of inquiry: The case of parsing. In M. Oaksford & N. Chater (Eds.), Rational models of cognition (pp. 441–468). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chater, N., & Manning, C. D. (2006). Probabilistic models of language processing and acquisition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(7), 335–344. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.05.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chwilla, D. J., Brown, C. M., & Hagoort, P. (1995). The N400 as a function of the level of processing. Psychophysiology, 32(3), 274–285. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1995.tb02956.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, A. (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(3), 233–253. doi:10.1017/S0140525X12000477
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, H. (1992). Arenas of language use. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clayards, M., Tanenhaus, M. K., Aslin, R. N., & Jacobs, R. A. (2008). Perception of speech reflects optimal use of probabilistic speech cues. Cognition, 108(3), 804–809. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.04.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cole, R. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1980). Listening for mispronunciations in a children's story: The use of context by children and adults. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(3), 297–315. doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(80)90239-x
   Google Scholar
• Connine, C. M., Blasko, D. G., & Hall, M. (1991). Effects of subsequent sentence context in auditory word recognition: Temporal and linguistic constraints. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(2), 234–250. doi:10.1016/0749-596x(91)90005-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Connolly, J. F., & Phillips, N. A. (1994). Event-related potential components reflect phonological and semantic processing of the terminal word of spoken sentences. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 6(3), 256–266. doi:10.1162/Jocn.1994.6.3.256
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crain, S., & Steedman, M. (1985). On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological syntax processor. In D. R. Dowty, L. Karttunen, & A. M. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives (pp. 320–358). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Crocker, M. W., & Brants, T. (2000). Wide-coverage probabilistic sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(6), 647–669. doi:10.1023/A:1026560822390
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahan, D. (2010). The time course of interpretation in speech comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(2), 121–126. doi:10.1177/0963721410364726
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahan, D., & Magnuson, J. S. (2006). Spoken word recognition. In M. J. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (Vol. 2, pp. 249–284). Amsterdam: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, M. H., & Johnsrude, I. S. (2007). Hearing speech sounds: Top-down influences on the interface between audition and speech perception. Hearing Research, 229(1–2), 132–147. doi:10.1016/j.heares.2007.01.014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dayan, P., & Hinton, G. E. (1996). Varieties of Helmholtz machine. Neural Networks, 9(8), 1385–1403. doi:10.1016/S0893-6080(96)00009-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dayan, P., Hinton, G. E., Neal, R. M., & Zemel, R. S. (1995). The Helmholtz machine. Neural Computation, 7(5), 889–904. doi:10.1162/neco.1995.7.5.889
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dell, G. S., & Brown, P. M. (1991). Mechanisms for listener-adaptation in language production: Limiting the role of the “model of the listener”. In D. J. Napoli & J. A. Kegl (Eds.), Bridges between psychology and linguistics: A Swarthmore Festschrift for Lila Gleitman (Vol. 105, pp. 105–129). Hillsdale, NJ: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dell, G. S., & Chang, F. (2014). The P-chain: Relating sentence production and its disorders to comprehension and acquisition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1634), 20120394. doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0394
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeLong, K. A., Troyer, M., & Kutas, M. (2014). Pre-processing in sentence comprehension: Sensitivity to likely upcoming meaning and structure. Language and Linguistics Compass, 8(12), 631–645. doi:10.1111/lnc3.12093
   PubMedGoogle 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(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(2), 193–210. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demberg, V., Keller, F., & Koller, A. (2013). Incremental, predictive parsing with psycholinguistically motivated tree-adjoining grammar. Computational Linguistics, 39(4), 1025–1066. doi:10.1162/Coli_a_00160
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dikker, S., & Pylkkänen, L. (2011). Before the N400: Effects of lexical-semantic violations in visual cortex. Brain and Language, 118(1–2), 23–28. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2011.02.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dikker, S., & Pylkkänen, L. (2013). Predicting language: MEG evidence for lexical preactivation. Brain and Language, 127(1), 55–64. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2012.08.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dikker, S., Rabagliati, H., Farmer, T. A., & Pylkkänen, L. (2010). Early occipital sensitivity to syntactic category is based on form typicality. Psychological Science, 21(5), 629–634. doi:10.1177/0956797610367751
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dikker, S., Rabagliati, H., & Pylkkänen, L. (2009). Sensitivity to syntax in visual cortex. Cognition, 110(3), 293–321. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.09.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dowty, D. R. (1979). Word meaning and Montague grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in Montague's PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel.
   Google Scholar
• Doya, K., Ishii, S., Pouget, A., & Rao, R. P. N. (Eds.). (2007). Bayesian brain: Probabilistic approaches to neural coding. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ehrlich, S. F., & Rayner, K. (1981). Contextual effects on word perception and eye movements during reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(6), 641–655. doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(81)90220-6
   Google Scholar
• Elman, J. L. (1990). Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14(2), 179–211. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1402_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elman, J. L., Hare, M., & McRae, K. (2004). Cues, constraints, and competition in sentence processing. In Beyond nature-nurture: Essays in honor of Elizabeth bates (pp. 111–138). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Elman, J. L., & McClelland, J. L. (1984). Speech perception as a cognitive process: The interactive activation model. In N. Lass (Ed.), Speech and language (Vol. 10) (pp. 337–374). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Engel, A. K., & Fries, P. (2010). Beta-band oscillations – signalling the status quo? Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 20(2), 156–165. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2010.02.015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farmer, T. A., Brown, M., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2013). Prediction, explanation, and the role of generative models in language processing. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(3), 211–212. doi:10.1017/S0140525X12002312
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farmer, T. A., Christiansen, M. H., & Monaghan, P. (2006). Phonological typicality influences on-line sentence comprehension. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 103(32), 12203–12208. doi:10.1073/pnas.0602173103
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Federmeier, K. D. (2007). Thinking ahead: The role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 44(4), 491–505. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00531.x
   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(4), 469–495. doi:10.1006/Jmla.1999.2660
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Federmeier, K. D., Kutas, M., & Schul, R. (2010). Age-related and individual differences in the use of prediction during language comprehension. Brain and Language, 115(3), 149–161. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2010.07.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Federmeier, K. D., Mai, H., & Kutas, M. (2005). Both sides get the point: Hemispheric sensitivities to sentential constraint. Memory and Cognition, 33(5), 871–886. doi:10.3758/BF03193082
   PubMed 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
• Feldman, H., & Friston, K. J. (2010). Attention, uncertainty, and free-energy. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 4, 215. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2010.00215
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feldman, N. H., Griffiths, T. L., Goldwater, S., & Morgan, J. L. (2013). A role for the developing lexicon in phonetic category acquisition. Psychological Review, 120(4), 751–778. doi:10.1037/a0034245
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feldman, N. H., Griffiths, T. L., & Morgan, J. L. (2009). The influence of categories on perception: Explaining the perceptual magnet effect as optimal statistical inference. Psychological Review, 116(4), 752–782. doi:10.1037/a0017196
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164–203. doi:10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00005-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., Christianson, K., & Hollingworth, A. (2001). Misinterpretations of garden-path sentences: Implications for models of sentence processing and reanalysis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30(1), 3–20. doi:10.1023/a:1005290706460
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348–368. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(86)90006-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., Foucart, A., & Engelhardt, P. E. (2013). Language processing in the visual world: Effects of preview, visual complexity, and prediction. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(3), 165–182. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2013.06.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. D. (2007). The ‘good enough’ approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(1–2), 71–83. doi:10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00007.x
   Google Scholar
• Fillmore, C. J. (2006). Frame semantics. Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings, 34, 373–400. doi:10.1515/9783110199901.373
   Google Scholar
• Fine, A. B., Jaeger, T. F., Farmer, T. A., & Qian, T. (2013). Rapid expectation adaptation during syntactic comprehension. PloS One, 8(10), e77661. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0077661
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fine, A. B., Qian, T., Jaeger, T. F., & Jacobs, R. A. (2010). Is there syntactic adaptation in language comprehension? Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2010 Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics (CMCL ‘10), Uppsala, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Fischler, I. S., & Bloom, P. A. (1979). Automatic and attentional processes in the effects of sentence contexts on word recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 1–20. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90534-6
   Google Scholar
• Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forster, K. I. (1981). Priming and the effects of sentence and lexical contexts on naming time: Evidence for autonomous lexical processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 33(4), 465–495. doi:10.1080/14640748108400804
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frank, S. L. (2013). Uncertainty reduction as a measure of cognitive load in sentence comprehension. Topics in Cognitive Science, 5(3), 475–494. doi:10.1111/tops.12025
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frank, S. L., & Bod, R. (2011). Insensitivity of the human sentence-processing system to hierarchical structure. Psychological Science, 22(6), 829–834. doi:10.1177/0956797611409589
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frank, S. L., Otten, L. J., Galli, G., & Vigliocco, G. (2015). The ERP response to the amount of information conveyed by words in sentences. Brain and Language, 140, 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2014.10.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frauenfelder, U. H., & Tyler, L. K. (1987). The process of spoken word recognition: An introduction. Cognition, 25, 1–20. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(87)90002-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraundorf, S., & Jaeger, T. F. (2015). Readers generalize priming of newly-encountered dialectal structures to other unfamiliar structures. Manuscript submitted for publication.
   Google Scholar
• Frazier, L. (1978). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies (Doctoral dissertation). University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
   Google Scholar
• Frisson, S., Rayner, K., & Pickering, M. J. (2005). Effects of contextual predictability and transitional probability on eye movements during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(5), 862–877. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.31.5.862
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friston, K. J. (2005). A theory of cortical responses. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 360(1456), 815–836. doi:10.1098/Rstb.2005.1622
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friston, K. J. (2008). Hierarchical models in the brain. PLoS Computational Biology, 4(11), e1000211. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000211
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friston, K. J. (2010). The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 127–138. doi:10.1038/nrn2787
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friston, K. J., Rigoli, F., Ognibene, D., Mathys, C., Fitzgerald, T., & Pezzulo, G. (2015). Active inference and epistemic value. Cognitive Neuroscience, 1–28. doi:10.1080/17588928.2015.1020053
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fruchter, J., Linzen, T., Westerlund, M., & Marantz, A. (2015). Lexical preactivation in basic linguistic phrases. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27(10), 1912–1935. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00822
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garnsey, S. M., Pearlmutter, N. J., Myers, E., & Lotocky, M. A. (1997). The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 37(1), 58–93. doi:10.1006/Jmla.1997.2512
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrod, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2015). The use of content and timing to predict turn transitions. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 751. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00751
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaskell, M. G. (2003). Modelling regressive and progressive effects of assimilation in speech perception. Journal of Phonetics, 31(3–4), 447–463. doi:10.1016/s0095-4470(03)00012-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaskell, M. G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1997). Integrating form and meaning: A distributed model of speech perception. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12(5–6), 613–656. doi:10.1080/016909697386646
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaskell, M. G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1999). Ambiguity, competition, and blending in spoken word recognition. Cognitive Science, 23(4), 439–462. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2304_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gershman, S. J., & Niv, Y. (2012). Exploring a latent cause theory of classical conditioning. Learning and Behavior, 40(3), 255–268. doi:10.3758/s13420-012-0080-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, E., & Pearlmutter, N. J. (2000). Distinguishing serial and parallel parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(2), 231–240. doi:10.1023/a:1005153330168
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, E., & Wu, H. H. I. (2013). Processing Chinese relative clauses in context. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(1–2), 125–155. doi:10.1080/01690965.2010.536656
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., Pearson, J., & Liversedge, S. P. (2005). Evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(2), 284–307. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2004.11.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (2001). Reanalysis in sentence processing: Evidence against current constraint-based and two-stage models. Journal of Memory and Language, 45(2), 225–258. doi:10.1006/jmla.2001.2773
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gorrell, P. G. (1987). Studies of human syntactic processing: Ranked-parallel versus serial models (Doctoral dissertation). University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
   Google Scholar
• Gorrell, P. G. (1989). Establishing the loci of serial and parallel effects in syntactic processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18(1), 61–73. doi:10.1007/bf01069047
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffiths, T. L., Chater, N., Kemp, C., Perfors, A., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2010). Probabilistic models of cognition: Exploring representations and inductive biases. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(8), 357–364. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffiths, T. L., Lieder, F., & Goodman, N. D. (2015). Rational use of cognitive resources: Levels of analysis between the computational and the algorithmic. Topics in Cognitive Science, 7(2), 217–229. doi:10.1111/tops.12142
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffiths, T. L., Steyvers, M., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007). Topics in semantic representation. Psychological Review, 114(2), 211–244. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.114.2.211
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groppe, D. M., Choi, M., Huang, T., Schilz, J., Topkins, B., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2010). The phonemic restoration effect reveals pre-N400 effect of supportive sentence context in speech perception. Brain Research, 1361, 54–66. doi:10.1016/J.Brainres.2010.09.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grosjean, F. (1980). Spoken word recognition processes and the gating paradigm. Perception and Psychophysics, 28(4), 267–283. doi:10.3758/bf03204386
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haefner, R. M., Berkes, P., & Fiser, J. (2014). Perceptual decision-making as probabilistic inference by neural sampling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.0257.
   Google Scholar
• Hagoort, P., Baggio, G., & Willems, R. M. (2009). Semantic unification. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences (4th ed., pp. 819–836). Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hale, J. (2001). A probabilistic earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Language technologies (NAACL ‘01), Pittsburgh, PA.
   Google Scholar
• Hale, J. (2003). The information conveyed by words in sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32(2), 101–123. doi:10.1023/A:1022492123056
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hale, J. (2011). What a rational parser would do. Cognitive Science, 35(3), 399–443. doi:10.1111/J.1551-6709.2010.01145.X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanulikova, A., van Alphen, P. M., van Goch, M. M., & Weber, A. (2012). When one person's mistake is another's standard usage: The effect of foreign accent on syntactic processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(4), 878–887. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00103
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hare, M., McRae, K., & Elman, J. L. (2003). Sense and structure: Meaning as a determinant of verb subcategorization preferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(2), 281–303. doi:10.1016/s0749-596x(02)00516-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hare, M., Tanenhaus, M. K., & McRae, K. (2007). Understanding and producing the reduced relative construction: Evidence from ratings, editing and corpora. Journal of Memory and Language, 56(3), 410–435. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2006.08.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartshorne, J. K., O'Donnell, T. J., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2015). The causes and consequences explicit in verbs. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(6), 716–734. doi:10.1080/23273798.2015.1008524
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayhoe, M., & Ballard, D. (2005). Eye movements in natural behavior. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(4), 188–194. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.02.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hinton, G. E. (2007). Learning multiple layers of representation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(10), 428–434. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2007.09.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hohwy, J., Roepstorff, A., & Friston, K. (2008). Predictive coding explains binocular rivalry: An epistemological review. Cognition, 108(3), 687–701. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.05.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howes, A., Lewis, R. L., & Vera, A. (2009). Rational adaptation under task and processing constraints: Implications for testing theories of cognition and action. Psychological Review, 116(4), 717–751. doi:10.1037/a0017187
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huettig, F., & Mani, N. (2015). Is prediction necessary to understand language? Probably not. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/23273798.2015.1072223
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutchison, K. A. (2007). Attentional control and the relatedness proportion effect in semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(4), 645–662. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.33.4.645
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackendoff, R. (1987). Language processing consciousness and the computational mind (pp. 91–120). Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jaeger, T. F. (2010). Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology, 61(1), 23–62. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.02.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaeger, T. F., & Ferreira, V. (2013). Seeking predictions from a predictive framework. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4), 359–360. doi:10.1017/S0140525X12002762
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaeger, T. F., & Snider, N. E. (2013). Alignment as a consequence of expectation adaptation: Syntactic priming is affected by the prime's prediction error given both prior and recent experience. Cognition, 127(1), 57–83. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2012.10.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jordan, M. I., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1992). Forward models: Supervised learning with a distal teacher. Cognitive Science, 16(3), 307–354. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1603_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jurafsky, D. (1996). A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science, 20(2), 137–194. doi:10.1016/s0364-0213(99)80005-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaiser, E., & Trueswell, J. C. (2004). The role of discourse context in the processing of a flexible word-order language. Cognition, 94(2), 113–147. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2004.01.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamide, Y. (2008). Anticipatory processes in sentence processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(4), 647–670. doi:10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00072.x
   Google Scholar
• Kamide, Y. (2012). Learning individual talkers’ structural preferences. Cognition, 124(1), 66–71. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2012.03.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamide, Y., Altmann, G. T., & Haywood, S. L. (2003). The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 133–156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katz, J. J., & Fodor, J. A. (1963). The structure of a semantic theory. Language, 39, 170–210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keller, F. (2003). A probabilistic parser as a model of global processing difficulty. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 25th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Boston.
   Google Scholar
• Kemp, C., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2008). The discovery of structural form. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 105(31), 10687–10692. doi:10.1073/pnas.0802631105
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, A., & Lai, V. (2012). Rapid interactions between lexical semantic and word form analysis during word recognition in context: Evidence from ERPs. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(5), 1104–1112. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00148
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W. (2001). Predication. Cognitive Science, 25(173–202). doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2502_1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleinschmidt, D. F., Fine, A. B., & Jaeger, T. F. (2012). A belief-updating model of adaptation and cue combination in syntactic comprehension. In N. Miyake, D. Peebles, & R. P. Cooper (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 605–610). Sapporo, Japan: Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Kleinschmidt, D. F., & Jaeger, F. T. (2015). Robust speech perception: Recognize the familiar, generalize to the similar, and adapt to the novel. Psychological Review, 122(2), 148–203. doi:10.1037/a0038695
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleinschmidt, D., Raizada, R., & Jaeger, T. F. (2015). Supervised and unsupervised learning in phonetic adaptation. In D. C. Noelle, R. Dale, A. S. Warlaumont, J. Yoshimi, T. Matlock, C. D. Jennings, & P. P. Maglio (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1129–1134). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Knill, D. C., & Pouget, A. (2004). The Bayesian brain: The role of uncertainty in neural coding and computation. Trends in Neurosciences, 27(12), 712–719. doi:10.1016/J.Tins.2004.10.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knoeferle, P., Crocker, M. W., Scheepers, C., & Pickering, M. J. (2005). The influence of the immediate visual context on incremental thematic role-assignment: Evidence from eye-movements in depicted events. Cognition, 95(1), 95–127. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2004.03.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolk, H. H. J., Chwilla, D. J., van Herten, M., & Oor, P. J. (2003). Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 85(1), 1–36. doi:10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00548-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kruschke, J. K. (2008). Bayesian approaches to associative learning: From passive to active learning. Learning and Behavior, 36(3), 210–226. doi:10.3758/lb.36.3.210
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhl, P. K. (1991). Human adults and human infants show a “perceptual magnet effect” for the prototypes of speech categories, monkeys do not. Perception and Psychophysics, 50(2), 93–107. doi:10.3758/bf03212211
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuperberg, G. R. (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
• Kuperberg, G. R. (2013). The proactive comprehender: What event-related potentials tell us about the dynamics of reading comprehension. In B. Miller, L. Cutting, & P. McCardle (Eds.), Unraveling reading comprehension: Behavioral, neurobiological, and genetic components (pp. 176–192). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
   Google Scholar
• Kuperberg, G. R. (2015). What event-related potentials might tell us about the neural architecture of language comprehension. Manuscript submitted for publication.
   Google Scholar
• Kuperberg, G. R., Paczynski, M., & Ditman, T. (2011). Establishing causal coherence across sentences: an ERP study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(5), 1230–1246. doi:10.1162/jocn.2010.21452
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuperberg, G. R., Sitnikova, T., Caplan, D., & Holcomb, P. J. (2003). Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences. Cognitive Brain Research, 17(1), 117–129. doi:10.1016/S0926-6410(03)00086-7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kurumada, C., Brown, M., Bibyk, S., Pontillo, D. F., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2014). Is it or isn't it: Listeners make rapid use of prosody to infer speaker meanings. Cognition, 133(2), 335–342. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.05.017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kurumada, C., & Jaeger, T. F. (2015). Communicative efficiency in language production: Optional case-marking in Japanese. Journal of Memory and Language, 83, 152–189. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2015.03.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kutas, M., DeLong, K. A., & Smith, N. J. (2011). A look around at what lies ahead: Prediction and predictability in language processing. In M. Bar (Ed.), Predictions in the brain: Using our past to generate a future (pp. 190–207). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   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(4427), 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(5947), 161–163. doi:10.1038/307161a0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwiatkowski, T., Goldwater, S., Zettlemoyer, L., & Steedman, M. (2012). A probabilistic model of syntactic and semantic acquisition from child-directed utterances and their meanings. Paper presented at the 13th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Avignon, France.
   Google Scholar
• Labov, W. (1969). Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. Language, 45(4), 715–762. doi:10.2307/412333
   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., Holcomb, P. J., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2013). Dissociating N400 effects of prediction from association in single-word contexts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(3), 484–502. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00328
   PubMed 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(12), 920–933. doi:10.1038/nrn2532
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laughlin, S. B., de Ruyter van Steveninck, R. R., & Anderson, J. C. (1998). The metabolic cost of neural information. Nature Neuroscience, 1(1), 36–41. doi:10.1038/236
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In T. Stivers & J. Sidnell (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 103–130). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Levy, R. (2005). Probabilistic models of word order and syntactic discontinuity (PhD dissertation). Stanford University.
   Google Scholar
• Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106(3), 1126–1177. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®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, USA, 106(50), 21086–21090. doi:10.1073/pnas.0907664106
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, A., & Bastiaansen, M. (2015). A predictive coding framework for rapid neural dynamics during sentence-level language comprehension. Cortex, 68, 155–168. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2015.02.014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, R. L. (2000). Falsifying serial and parallel parsing models: Empirical conundrums and an overlooked paradigm. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(2), 241–248. doi:10.1023/a:1005105414238
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, R. L., Howes, A., & Singh, S. (2014). Computational rationality: Linking mechanism and behavior through bounded utility maximization. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6(2), 279–311. doi:10.1111/tops.12086
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, R. L., Shvartsman, M., & Singh, S. (2013). The adaptive nature of eye movements in linguistic tasks: How payoff and architecture shape speed-accuracy trade-offs. Topics in Cognitive Science, 5(3), 581–610. doi:10.1111/tops.12032
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linzen, T., & Jaeger, T. F. (2015). Uncertainty and expectation in sentence processing: Evidence from subcategorization distributions. Cognitive Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/cogs.12274
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luck, S. J. (2014). An introduction to the event-related potential technique (2nd ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• MacDonald, M. C., Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). Working memory constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity. Cognitive Psychology, 24(1), 56–98. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(92)90003-k
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101(4), 676–703. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.676
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacKay, D. J. C. (2003). Information theory, inference, and learning algorithms (Vol. 7). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Magyari, L., & de Ruiter, J. P. (2012). Prediction of turn-ends based on anticipation of upcoming words. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 376. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00376
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. New York, NY: Freeman.
   Google Scholar
• Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1987). Functional parallelism in spoken word-recognition. Cognition, 25, 71–102. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(87)90005-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Brown, C., & Tyler, L. K. (1988). Lexical representations in spoken language comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 3, 1–16. doi:10.1080/01690968808402079
   Google Scholar
• Massaro, D. W. (1989). Testing between the TRACE model and the fuzzy logical model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 21(3), 398–421. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(89)90014-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matsuki, K., Chow, T., Hare, M., Elman, J. L., Scheepers, C., & McRae, K. (2011). Event-based plausibility immediately influences on-line language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(4), 913–934. doi:10.1037/a0022964
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCarthy, G., & Nobre, A. C. (1993). Modulation of semantic processing by spatial selective attention. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 88(3), 210–219. doi:10.1016/0168-5597(93)90005-a
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McClelland, J. L. (1998). Connectionist models and Bayesian inference. In M. Oaksford & N. Chater (Eds.), Rational models of cognition (pp. 21–52). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McClelland, J. L. (2013). Integrating probabilistic models of perception and interactive neural networks: A historical and tutorial review. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 503. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00503
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18(1), 1–86. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(86)90015-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McClelland, J. L., & O'Regan, J. K. (1981). Expectations increase the benefit derived from parafoveal visual information in reading words aloud. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7(3), 634–644. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.7.3.634
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88(5), 375–407. doi:10.1037//0033-295x.88.5.375
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McClelland, J. L., St. John, M., & Taraban, R. (1989). Sentence comprehension: A parallel distributed processing approach. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, SI287–SI335.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald, S. A., & Shillcock, R. C. (2003). Eye movements reveal the on-line computation of lexical probabilities during reading. Psychological Science, 14(6), 648–652.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGowan, K. B. (2015). Social expectation improves speech perception in noise. Language and Speech. doi:10.1177/0023830914565191
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99(3), 440–466. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.99.3.440
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McRae, K., Ferretti, T. R., & Amyote, L. (1997). Thematic roles as verb-specific concepts. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12(2–3), 137–176. doi:10.1080/016909697386835
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McRae, K., & Matsuki, K. (2009). People use their knowledge of common events to understand language, and do so as quickly as possible. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(6), 1417–1429. doi:10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00174.x
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Metusalem, R., Kutas, M., Urbach, T. P., Hare, M., McRae, K., & Elman, J. L. (2012). Generalized event knowledge activation during online sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(4), 545–567. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.01.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, G. A., Heise, G. A., & Lichten, W. (1951). The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41(5), 329–335. doi:10.1037/h0062491
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Morton, J. (1969). Interaction of information in word recognition. Psychological Review, 76(2), 165–178. doi:10.1037/h0027366
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers, J. L., & O'Brien, E. J. (1998). Accessing the discourse representation during reading. Discourse Processes, 26(2&3), 131–157. doi:10.1080/01638539809545042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Narayanan, S., & Jurafsky, D. (2002). Combining structure and probabilities in a Bayesian model of human sentence processing. Paper presented at the CUNY conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Neely, J. H. (1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. In D. Besner & G. W. Humphreys (Eds.), Basic processes in reading and visual word recognition (pp. 264–333). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Neely, J. H., Keefe, D. E., & Ross, K. (1989). Semantic priming in the lexical decision task: Roles of prospective prime-generated expectancies and retrospective semantic matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(6), 1003–1019. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.15.6.1003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niedzielski, N. (1999). The effect of social information on the perception of sociolinguistic variables. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18(1), 62–85. doi:10.1177/0261927×99018001005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norris, D. (1994). Shortlist: A connectionist model of continuous speech recognition. Cognition, 52(3), 189–234. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)90043-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norris, D. (2006). The Bayesian reader: Explaining word recognition as an optimal Bayesian decision process. Psychological Review, 113(2), 327–357. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.113.2.327
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norris, D., & McQueen, J. M. (2008). Shortlist B: A Bayesian model of continuous speech recognition. Psychological Review, 115(2), 357–395. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.357
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norris, D., McQueen, J. M., & Cutler, A. (2000). Merging information in speech recognition: Feedback is never necessary. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(3), 299–325. doi:10.1017/S0140525×00003241
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Otten, M., & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2007). What makes a discourse constraining? Comparing the effects of discourse message and scenario fit on the discourse-dependent N400 effect. Brain Research, 1146, 158–171. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2007.03.058
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paczynski, M., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2011). Electrophysiological evidence for use of the animacy hierarchy, but not thematic role assignment, during verb argument processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(9), 1402–1456. doi:10.1080/01690965.2011.580143
   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
• Perfors, A., Tenenbaum, J. B., Griffiths, T. L., & Xu, F. (2011). A tutorial introduction to Bayesian models of cognitive development. Cognition, 120(3), 302–321. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.11.015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2007). Do people use language production to make predictions during comprehension? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(3), 105–110. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.12.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(04), 329–347. doi:10.1017/S0140525X12001495
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola symposium (pp. 55–85). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Pyykkönen, P., & Järvikivi, J. (2010). Activation and persistence of implicit causality information in spoken language comprehension. Experimental Psychology. doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qian, T., & Jaeger, T. F. (2011). Topic shift in efficient discourse production. In L. Carlson, C. Holscher, & T. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 3313–3318). Boston, MA: Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Qian, T., Jaeger, T. F., & Aslin, R. N. (2012). Learning to represent a multi-context environment: More than detecting changes. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 228. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00228
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rabovsky, M., & 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. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.03.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rao, R. P., & Ballard, D. H. (1999). Predictive coding in the visual cortex: A functional interpretation of some extra-classical receptive-field effects. Nature Neuroscience, 2(1), 79–87. doi:10.1038/4580
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, K., Binder, K. S., Ashby, J., & Pollatsek, A. (2001). Eye movement control in reading: Word predictability has little influence on initial landing positions in words. Vision Research, 41(7), 943–954. doi:10.1016/s0042-6989(00)00310-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, K., & Well, A. D. (1996). Effects of contextual constraint on eye movements in reading: A further examination. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 3(4), 504–509. doi:10.3758/BF03214555
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In W. E. Prokasy & A. H. Black (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64–99). New York, NY: Appleton- Century-Crofts.
   Google Scholar
• Roark, B., Bachrach, A., Cardenas, C., & Pallier, C. (2009). Deriving lexical and syntactic expectation-based measures for psycholinguistic modeling via incremental top-down parsing. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2009 conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP ‘09), Singapore.
   Google Scholar
• Rohde, H., & Horton, W. S. (2014). Anticipatory looks reveal expectations about discourse relations. Cognition, 133(3), 667–691. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.08.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rohde, H., Levy, R., & Kehler, A. (2011). Anticipating explanations in relative clause processing. Cognition, 118(3), 339–358. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Ruiter, J. P., Mitterer, H., & Enfield, N. J. (2006). Projecting the end of a speaker's turn: A cognitive cornerstone of conversation. Language, 82(3), 515–535. doi:10.1353/lan.2006.0130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1982). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: II. The contextual enhancement effect and some tests and extensions of the model. Psychological Review, 89(1), 60–94. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.89.1.60
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. doi:10.2307/412243
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salverda, A. P., Brown, M., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2011). A goal-based perspective on eye movements in visual world studies. Acta Psychologica, 137(2), 172–180. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.09.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanford, A. J. (1990). On the nature of text-driven inference. In D. A. Balota, F. d'Arcais, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 515–538). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. C. (1998). The role of scenario mapping in text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 26(2–3), 159–190. doi:10.1080/01638539809545043
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Lacount, K. L. (1988). Semantic relatedness and the scope of facilitation for upcoming words in sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 14(2), 344–354. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.14.2.344
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Shoben, E. J. (1985). The influence of sentence constraint on the scope of facilitation for upcoming words. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 232–252. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(85)90026-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sedivy, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., Chambers, C. G., & Carlson, G. N. (1999). Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation. Cognition, 71(2), 109–147. doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(99)00025-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shadlen, M. N., & Newsome, W. T. (1994). Noise, neural codes and cortical organization. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 4(4), 569–579. doi:10.1016/0959-4388(94)90059-0
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379–423. doi:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63(2), 129–138. doi:10.1037/h0042769
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1990). Invariants of human behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 1–20. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.000245
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sitnikova, T., Holcomb, P., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2008). Neurocognitive mechanisms of human comprehension. In T. F. Shipley & J. M. Zacks (Eds.), Understanding events: How humans see, represent, and act on events (pp. 639–683). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, N. J., & Levy, R. (2013). The effect of word predictability on reading time is logarithmic. Cognition, 128(3), 302–319. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2013.02.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snedeker, J., & Yuan, S. (2008). Effects of prosodic and lexical constraints on parsing in young children (and adults). Journal of Memory and Language, 58(2), 574–608. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.08.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sohoglu, E., Peelle, J. E., Carlyon, R. P., & Davis, M. H. (2012). Predictive top-down integration of prior knowledge during speech perception. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(25), 8443–8453. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5069-11.2012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sonderegger, M., & Yu, A. (2010). A rational account of perceptual compensation for coarticulation. In S. Ohlsson & R. Camtrabone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 375–380). Portland, OR: Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Trueswell, J. C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1993). Context effects in syntactic ambiguity resolution: Discourse and semantic influences in parsing reduced relative clauses. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47(2), 276–309. doi:10.1037/h0078826
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1979). Mechanisms of sentence context effects in reading: Automatic activation and conscious attention. Memory and Cognition, 7, 77–85. doi:10.3758/BF03197588
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1981). The effect of a sentence context on ongoing word recognition: Tests of a two-process theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 658–672. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.7.3.658
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1983). On priming by a sentence context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 112(1), 1–36. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.112.1.1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staub, A. (2015). The effect of lexical predictability on eye movements in reading: Critical review and theoretical interpretation. Language and Linguistics Compass, 9(8), 311–327. doi:10.1111/lnc3.12151
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staub, A., Grant, M., Astheimer, L., & Cohen, A. (2015). The influence of cloze probability and item constraint on cloze task response time. Journal of Memory and Language, 82, 1–17. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2015.02.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stilp, C. E., & Kluender, K. R. (2010). Cochlea-scaled entropy, not consonants, vowels, or time, best predicts speech intelligibility. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(27), 12387–12392. doi:10.1073/pnas.0913625107
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., … Levinson, S. C. (2009). Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(26), 10587–10592. doi:10.1073/pnas.0903616106
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sussman, R. S. (2006). Processing and representation of verbs: Insights from instruments (PhD dissertation). University of Rochester.
   Google Scholar
• Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re) consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(6), 645–659. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90355-4
   Google Scholar
• Szostak, C. M., & Pitt, M. A. (2013). The prolonged influence of subsequent context on spoken word recognition. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 75(7), 1533–1546. doi:10.3758/s13414-013-0492-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanenhaus, M. K., & Brown-Schmidt, S. (2008). Language processing in the natural world. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 363(1493), 1105–1122. doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.2162
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanenhaus, M. K., Chambers, C. G., & Hanna, J. E. (2004). Referential domains in spoken language comprehension: Using eye movements to bridge the product and action traditions. In J. M. Henderson & F. Ferreira (Eds.), The interface of language, vision, and action: Eye movements and the visual world (pp. 279–317). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268(5217), 1632–1634. doi:10.1126/science.7777863
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanenhaus, M. K., & Trueswell, J. C. (1995). Sentence comprehension. In J. L. Miller & P. D. Eimas (Eds.), Speech, language, and communication (2nd ed., Vol. 11, pp. 217–262). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tanenhaus, M. K., & Trueswell, J. C. (2006). Eye movements and spoken language comprehension. In M. J. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 863–900). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, W. (1953). ‘Cloze’ procedure: A new tool for measuring readability. Journalism Quarterly, 30, 415–433.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tooley, K. M., & Traxler, M. J. (2010). Syntactic priming effects in comprehension: A critical review. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(10), 925–937. doi:10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00249.x
   Google Scholar
• Toscano, J. C., & McMurray, B. (2010). Cue integration with categories: Weighting acoustic cues in speech using unsupervised learning and distributional statistics. Cognitive Science, 34(3), 434–464. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01077.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®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. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2014.08.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Traxler, M. J., & Foss, D. J. (2000). Effects of sentence constraint on priming in natural language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 26(5), 1266–1282. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.26.5.1266
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285–318. doi:10.1006/jmla.1994.1014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Kello, C. (1993). Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 19(3), 528–553. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.19.3.528
   PubMed Web of Science ®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. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.31.3.443
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Van Petten, C., & Luka, B. J. (2012). Prediction during language comprehension: Benefits, costs, and ERP components. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 83(2), 176–190. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.09.015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wacongne, C., Labyt, E., van Wassenhove, V., Bekinschtein, T., Naccache, L., & Dehaene, S. (2011). Evidence for a hierarchy of predictions and prediction errors in human cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(51), 20754–20759. doi:10.1073/Pnas.1117807108
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warren, R. M. (1970). Perceptual restoration of missing speech sounds. Science, 167(3917), 392–393. doi:10.1126/science.167.3917.392
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiss, S., & Mueller, H. M. (2012). “Too many betas do not spoil the broth”: The role of beta brain oscillations in language processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 201. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00201
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wicha, N. 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(7), 1272–1288. doi:10.1162/0898929041920487
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, M. P., & Garnsey, S. M. (2009). Making simple sentences hard: Verb bias effects in simple direct object sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 60(3), 368–392. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2008.09.005
   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(1), 356–366. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.054
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wlotko, E. W., & Federmeier, K. D. (2015). Time for prediction? The effect of presentation rate on predictive sentence comprehension during word-by-word reading. Cortex, 68, 20–32. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2015.03.014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood, J. N., & Grafman, J. (2003). Human prefrontal cortex: Processing and representational perspectives. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4(2), 139–147. doi:10.1038/Nrn1033
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woods, D. L., Yund, E. W., Herron, T. J., & Ua Cruadhlaoich, M. A. (2010). Consonant identification in consonant-vowel-consonant syllables in speech-spectrum noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 127(3), 1609–1623. doi:10.1121/1.3293005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, S., Bachrach, A., Cardenas, C., & Schuler, C. (2010). Complexity metrics in an incremental right-corner parser. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 48th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL ‘10), Uppsala, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Xiang, M., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2015). Reversing expectations during discourse comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(6), 648–672. doi:10.1080/23273798.2014.995679
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoon, S. O., Koh, S., & Brown-Schmidt, S. (2012). Influence of perspective and goals on reference production in conversation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 19(4), 699–707. doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0262-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123(2), 162–185. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar