A comparison of online and offline measures of good-enough processing in garden-path sentences

References

• Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barton, S. B., & Sanford, A. J. (1993). A case study of anomaly detection: Shallow semantic processing and cohesion establishment. Memory & Cognition, 21, 477–487. doi: 10.3758/BF03197179
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. Cognition and the Development of Language, 279, 1–61.
   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
• Chatrian, G. E., Lettich, E., & Nelson, P. L. (1985). Ten percent electrode system for topographic studies of spontaneous and evoked EEG activities. American Journal of EEG Technology, 25, 83–92.
   Google Scholar
• Christianson, K. (2008). Sensitivity to syntactic changes in garden path sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 37, 391–403. doi: 10.1007/s10936-008-9072-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christianson, K. (2016). When language comprehension goes wrong for the right reasons: Good-enough, underspecified, or shallow language processing. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 817–828. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2015.1134603
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J. F., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 368–407. doi: 10.1006/cogp.2001.0752
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christianson, K., & Luke, S. G. (2011). Context strengthens initial misinterpretations of text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15, 136–166. doi: 10.1080/10888431003636787
   Web of Science ®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, 538–544.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christianson, K., Williams, C. C., Zacks, R. T., & Ferreira, F. (2006). Younger and older adults’ “good-enough” interpretations of garden-path sentences. Discourse Processes, 42, 205–238. doi: 10.1207/s15326950dp4202_6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42. doi: 10.1017/S0142716406060024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coulson, S., King, J. W., & Kutas, M. (1998). Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, 21–58. doi: 10.1080/016909698386582
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coulson, S., & Kutas, M. (2001). Getting it: Human event-related brain response to jokes in good and poor comprehenders. Neuroscience Letters, 316, 71–74. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3940(01)02387-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®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, 42–45. doi: 10.20982/tqmp.01.1.p042
   Google Scholar
• den Ouden, D. B., Dickey, M. W., Anderson, C., & Christianson, K. (2016). Neural correlates of early-closure garden-path processing: Effects of prosody and plausibility. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 926–949. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2015.1028416
   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., Bailey, K. G. D., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11–15. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00158
   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, 3–20. doi: 10.1023/A:1005290706460
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C. (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., & Henderson, J. M. (1990). Use of verb information in syntactic parsing: Evidence from eye movements and word-by-word self-paced reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 555–568.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. M. (1991). Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 725–745. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(91)90034-H
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. M. (1998). Syntactic reanalysis, thematic processing, and sentence comprehension. In J. D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 73–100). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., Lau, E. F., & Bailey, K. G. D. (2004). Disfluencies, language comprehension, and tree adjoining grammars. Cognitive Science, 28, 721–749. doi:10.1016/j.cogsci.2003.10.006 doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog2805_5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. D. (2007). The “good enough” approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 71–83. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00007.x
   Google Scholar
• Fodor, J. D., & Inoue, A. (1998). Attach anyway. In J. D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (Vol. 21, pp. 101–141). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1998). Sentence reanalysis and visibility. In J. D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 143–176). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291–325. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(78)90002-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178–210. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(82)90008-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friederici, A. D. (1998). The neurobiology of language processing. In A. D. Friederici (Ed.), Language comprehension: A biological perspective (pp. 263–301). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Friederici, A. D., Mecklinger, A., Spencer, K. M., Steinhauer, K., & Donchin, E. (2001). Syntactic parsing preferences and their on-line revisions: A spatio-temporal analysis of event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Brain Research, 11, 305–323. doi: 10.1016/S0926-6410(00)00065-3
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Frisch, S., Schlesewsky, M., Saddy, D., & Alpermann, A. (2002). The P600 as an indicator of syntactic ambiguity. Cognition, 85, B83–B92. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00126-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frisson, S. (2009). Semantic underspecification in language processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3, 111–127. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00104.x
   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, 58–93. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1997.2512
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gouvea, A. C., Phillips, C., Kazanina, N., & Poeppel, D. (2010). The linguistic processes underlying the P600. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 149–188. doi: 10.1080/01690960902965951
   Web of Science ®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
• Grodner, D., Gibson, E., Argaman, V., & Babyonyshev, M. (2003). Against repair-based reanalysis in sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32, 141–166. doi: 10.1023/A:1022496223965
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gullick, M. M., Mitra, P., & Coch, D. (2013). Imagining the truth and the moon: An electrophysiological study of abstract and concrete word processing. Psychophysiology, 50, 431–440. doi: 10.1111/psyp.12033
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunter, T. C., Friederici, A. D., & Schriefers, H. (2000). Syntactic gender and semantic expectancy: ERPs reveal early autonomy and late interaction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 556–568. doi: 10.1162/089892900562336
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagoort, P., Brown, C., & Groothusen, J. (1993). The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 439–483. doi: 10.1080/01690969308407585
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (1999). Electrophysiological evidence for two steps in syntactic analysis: Early automatic and late controlled processes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 194–205. doi: 10.1162/089892999563328
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (2002). Differential task effects on semantic and syntactic processes as revealed by ERPs. Cognitive Brain Research, 13, 339–356. doi: 10.1016/S0926-6410(01)00127-6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Holcomb, P. J., Kounios, J., Anderson, J. E., & West, W. C. (1999). Dual-coding, context-availability, and concreteness effects in sentence comprehension: An electrophysiological investigation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 721–742.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacob, G., & Felser, C. (2016). Reanalysis and semantic persistence in native and non-native garden-path recovery. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 907–925. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2014.984231
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google 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, 434–446. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E., & Holcomb, P. (2000). The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 159–201. doi: 10.1080/016909600386084
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaan, E., & Swaab, T. (2003). Repair, revision, and complexity in syntactic analysis: An electrophysiological differentiation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 98–110. doi: 10.1162/089892903321107855
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karimi, H., & Ferreira, F. (2016). Good-enough linguistic representations and online cognitive equilibrium in language processing. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 1013–1040. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2015.1053951
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaschak, M. P., & Glenberg, A. M. (2004). This construction needs learned. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 450–467. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.133.3.450
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, A., & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 205–225. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2004.10.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, J., & Kutas, M. (1995). Who did what and when? Using word- and clause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 376–395. doi: 10.1162/jocn.1995.7.3.376
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kluender, R., & Kutas, M. (1993). Bridging the gap: Evidence from ERPs on the processing of unbounded dependencies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 196–214. doi: 10.1162/jocn.1993.5.2.196
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolk, H. H. J., Chwilla, D. J., van Herten, M., & Oor, P. J. W. (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
• Kounios, J., & Holcomb, P. J. (1994). Concreteness effects in semantic processing: ERP evidence supporting dual-coding theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 804–823.
   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., Caplan, D., Sitnikova, T., Eddy, M., & Holcomb, P. J. (2006). Neural correlates of processing syntactic, semantic, and thematic relationships in sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 489–530. doi: 10.1080/01690960500094279
   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
• Lau, E. F., & Ferreira, F. (2005). Lingering effects of disfluent material on comprehension of garden path sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 633–666. doi: 10.1080/01690960444000142
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, C.-L., & Federmeier, K. D. (2008). To watch, to see, and to differ: An event-related potential study of concreteness effects as a function of word class and lexical ambiguity. Brain and Language, 104, 145–158. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2007.06.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, C.-L., & Federmeier, K. D. (2009). Wave-ering: An ERP study of syntactic and semantic context effects on ambiguity resolution for noun/verb homographs. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 538–555. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.08.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lim, J.-H., & Christianson, K. (2013a). Integrating meaning and structure in L1-L2 and L2-L1 translations. Second Language Acquisition, 29, 233–256.
   Google Scholar
• Lim, J.-H., & Christianson, K. (2013b). Second language sentence processing in reading for comprehension and translation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 518–537. doi: 10.1017/S1366728912000351
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loftus, G. R., & Masson, M. E. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 476–490. doi: 10.3758/BF03210951
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lopez-Calderon, J., & Luck, S. J. (2014). ERPLAB: An open-source toolbox for the analysis of event-related potentials. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 734. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00213
   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, 676–703. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.676
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malyutina, S., & den Ouden, D.-B. (2016). What is it that lingers? Garden-path (mis)interpretations in younger and older adults. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 880–906. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2015.1045530
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McRae, K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on-line sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 283–312. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1997.2543
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morey, R. D. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4, 61–64. doi: 10.20982/tqmp.04.2.p061
   Google Scholar
• Nakamura, C., & Arai, M. (2016). Persistence of initial misanalysis with no referential ambiguity. Cognitive Science, 40(4), 909–940. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12266
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson, T. O., & Leonesio, R. J. (1988). Allocation of self-paced study time and the “labor-in-vain effect”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 676–686.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M. S., Otten, M., & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2007). Who are you talking about? Tracking discourse-level referential processing with event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 228–236. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2007.19.2.228
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oines, L., & Kim, A. (2014). Integrate or repair? ERP responses to semantic anomalies depend on choice of processing strategy. Paper presented at the Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing (AMLaP) Conference, Edinburgh.
   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
• 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
• Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1993). Event-related potentials and syntactic anomaly: Evidence of anomaly detection during the perception of continuous speech. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 413–437. doi: 10.1080/01690969308407584
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osterhout, L., Holcomb, P. J., & Swinney, D. A. (1994). Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: Evidence of the application of verb information during parsing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 786–803.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osterhout, L., & Mobley, L. A. (1995). Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 739–773. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1995.1033
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patson, N. D., Darowski, E. S., Moon, N., & Ferreira, F. (2009). Lingering misinterpretations in garden-path sentences: Evidence from a paraphrasing task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 280–285.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Payne, B. R., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. L. (2016). Risk for mild cognitive impairment is associated with semantic integration deficits in sentence processing and memory. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 71, 243–253. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbu103
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (2003). Evidence against the use of subcategorisation frequency in the processing of unbounded dependencies. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 469–503. doi: 10.1080/01690960344000017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickering, M. J., Traxler, M. J., & Crocker, M. W. (2000). Ambiguity resolution in sentence processing: Evidence against frequency-based accounts. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 447–475. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2000.2708
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, K., Carlson, M., & Frazier, L. (1983). The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: Eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 358–374. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(83)90236-0
   Google Scholar
• R Development Core Team. (2008). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
   Google Scholar
• Sachs, J. S. (1967). Recopition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse. Perception & Psychophysics, 2, 437–442. doi: 10.3758/BF03208784
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanford, A. J., & Sturt, P. (2002). Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 382–386. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01958-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slattery, T. J., Sturt, P., Christianson, K., Yoshida, M., & Ferreira, F. (2013). Lingering misinterpretations of garden path sentences arise from flawed semantic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 104–120. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2013.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stine-Morrow, E. A. L., Shake, M. C., Miles, J. R., Lee, K., Gao, X., & McConkie, G. W. (2010). Pay now or pay later: Aging and the role of boundary salience in self-regulation of conceptual integration in sentence processing. Psychology and Aging, 25, 168–176. doi: 10.1037/a0018127
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sturt, P. (2007). Semantic re-interpretation and garden path recovery. Cognition, 105, 477–488. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.10.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sturt, P., Pickering, M. J., & Crocker, M. W. (1999). Structural change and reanalysis difficulty in language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 136–150. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1998.2606
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swets, B., Desmet, T., Clifton, C., & Ferreira, F. (2008). Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading. Memory & Cognition, 36, 201–216. doi: 10.3758/MC.36.1.201
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tabor, W., & Hutchins, S. (2004). Evidence for self-organized sentence processing: Digging-in effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 431–450.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanner, D. (2015). On the left anterior negativity (LAN) in electrophysiological studies of morphosyntactic agreement. Cortex, 66, 149–155. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2014.04.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Townsend, D. J., & Bever, T. G. (2001). Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   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, 528–553.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Dyke, J. A., & Lewis, R. L. (2003). Distinguishing effects of structure and decay on attachment and repair: A cue-based parsing account of recovery from misanalyzed ambiguities. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 285–316. doi: 10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00081-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., Pearson, J., & Jacob, G. (2006). The activation of inappropriate analyses in garden-path sentences: Evidence from structural priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 335–362. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.06.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Herten, M., Chwilla, D. J., & Kolk, H. H. J. (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. J., & 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
• Warner, J., & Glass, A. L. (1987). Context and distance-to-disambiguation effects in ambiguity resolution: Evidence from grammaticality judgments of garden path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 714–738. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(87)90111-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weckerly, J., & Kutas, M. (1999). An electrophysiological analysis of animacy effects in the processing of object relative sentences. Psychophysiology, 36, 559–570. doi: 10.1111/1469-8986.3650559
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wlotko, E., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Flexible implementation of anticipatory language comprehension mechanisms. Paper presented at the Cognitive Neuroscience Society Meeting, San Francisco, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Wlotko, E. W., & Federmeier, K. D. (2012). So that’s what you mean! 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
• Wonnacott, E., Joseph, H. S. S. L., Adelman, J. S., & Nation, K. (2016). Is children’s reading “good enough”? Links between online processing and comprehension as children read syntactically ambiguous sentences. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 855–879. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2015.1011176
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, Q., Guo, C.-Y., Ding, J.-H., & Wang, Z.-Y. (2006). Concreteness effects in the processing of Chinese words. Brain and Language, 96, 59–68. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2005.04.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar