References
- Brennan, J. R., & Hale, J. T. (2019). Hierarchical structure guides rapid linguistic predictions during naturalistic listening. PLOS ONE, 14(1), e0207741. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207741
- Cdallaway, F., Hamrick, J., & Griffiths, T. (2017). Discovering simple heuristics from mental simulation [Preprint]. Open Science Framework. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/wrqtp
- 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(2), 205–238. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp4202_6
- Di Liberto, G. M., O’Sullivan, J. A., & Lalor, E. C. (2015). Low-frequency cortical entrainment to speech Reflects Phoneme-level processing. Current Biology, 25(19), 2457–2465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.08.030
- Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. D. (2007). The?good enough? Approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(1–2), 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00007.x
- Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2787
- Gross, J., Hoogenboom, N., Thut, G., Schyns, P., Panzeri, S., Belin, P., & Garrod, S. (2013). Speech rhythms and multiplexed oscillatory sensory coding in the human brain. PLoS Biology, 11(12), e1001752. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001752
- Henry, M. J., & Herrmann, B. (2014). Low-frequency neural oscillations support dynamic attending in temporal context. Timing & Time Perception, 2(1), 62–86. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134468-00002011
- Hurford, J. R. (2003). The neural basis of predicate-argument structure. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26(3). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X03000074
- Jones, M. R. (1976). Time, our lost dimension: Toward a new theory of perception, attention, and memory. Psychological Review, 83(5), 323. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.83.5.323
- Jones, M. R., & Boltz, M. (1989). Dynamic attending and responses to time. Psychological Review, 96(3), 459. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.96.3.459
- Kandylaki, K. D., Nagels, A., Tune, S., Kircher, T., Wiese, R., Schlesewsky, M., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2016). Predicting “when” in discourse engages the human dorsal auditory stream: An fMRI study using naturalistic stories. Journal of Neuroscience, 36(48), 12180–12191. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4100-15.2016
- Karimi, H., & Ferreira, F. (2016). Good-enough linguistic representations and online cognitive equilibrium in language processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(5), 1013–1040. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1053951
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.03.002
- Kotz, S. A., Ravignani, A., & Fitch, W. T. (2018). The evolution of rhythm processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(10), 896–910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.08.002
- Kotz, S. A., & Schwartze, M. (2010). Cortical speech processing unplugged: A timely subcortico-cortical framework. Trends in Cognitive Science, 14(9), 392–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.06.005
- MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (n.d.). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. 28.
- Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Tyler, L. K., Warren, P., Grenier, P., & Lee, C. S. (1992). Prosodic effects in minimal attachment. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 45(1), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749208401316
- Meyer, L., Henry, M. J., Gaston, P., Schmuck, N., & Friederici, A. D. (2016). Linguistic bias modulates interpretation of speech via neural delta-Band oscillations. Cerebral Cortex, cercor;bhw228v1. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhw228
- Meyer, L., Sun, Y., & Martin, A. E. (2019). Synchronous, but not entrained: Exogenous and endogenous cortical rhythms of speech and language processing. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2019.1693050
- Nakano, H., Saron, C., & Swaab, T. Y. (2010). Speech and span: Working memory capacity impacts the use of animacy but not of world knowledge during spoken sentence comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(12), 2886–2898. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21400
- Peelle, J. E., & Davis, M. H. (2012). Neural oscillations carry speech rhythm through to comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00320
- Rauschecker, J. P., & Scott, S. K. (2009). Maps and streams in the auditory cortex: Nonhuman primates illuminate human speech processing. Nature Neuroscience, 12(6), 718–724. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2331
- Rothermich, K., Schmidt-Kassow, M., & Kotz, S. A. (2012). Rhythm’s gonna get you: Regular meter facilitates semantic sentence processing. Neuropsychologia, 50(2), 232–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.10.025
- Schmidt-Kassow, M., & Kotz, S. A. (2009). Event-related brain potentials suggest a Late interaction of meter and syntax in the P600. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(9), 1693–1708. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.21153
- Sörqvist, P., & Rönnberg, J. (2012). Episodic long-term memory of spoken discourse masked by speech: What Is the role for working memory capacity? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 55(1), 210–218. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0353)
- Spivey-Knowlton, M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints. Cognition, 55(3), 227–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)00647-4
- Steinhauer, K., Alter, K., & Friederici, A. D. (1999). Brain potentials indicate immediate use of prosodic cues in natural speech processing. Nature Neuroscience, 2(2), 191–196. https://doi.org/10.1038/5757
- Swets, B., Desmet, T., Hambrick, D. Z., & Ferreira, F. (2007). The role of working memory in syntactic ambiguity resolution: A psychometric approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(1), 64–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.1.64
- VanRullen, R. (2016). Perceptual cycles. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(10), 723–735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.006
- Weissbart, H., Kandylaki, K. D., & Reichenbach, T. (2020). Cortical tracking of surprisal during continuous speech comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 32(1), 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01467