Memory for linguistic features and the focus of attention: evidence from the dynamics of agreement inside DP

References

• Abney, S. P. (1987). The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
   Google Scholar
• Adger, D., & Harbour, D. (2008). Why phi? In D. Harbour, D. Adger, & S. Béjar (Eds.), Phi theory (pp. 1–34). Oxford UP.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, J. R., & LeBiere, C. (1998). The atomic components of thought. Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, M. C., & Neely, J. H. (1996). Interference and inhibition in memory retrieval. In E. Ligon & R. Bjork (Eds.), Memory, Handbook of perception and cognition (2nd ed., pp. 237–313). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Badecker, W., & Kuminiak, F. (2007). Morphology, agreement and working memory retrieval in sentence production: Evidence from gender and case in Slovak. Journal of Memory and Language, 56(1), 65–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.08.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Badecker, W., & Lewis, R. (2007). A new theory and computational model of working memory in sentence production: Agreement errors as failures of cue-based retrieval. Paper presented at the 20th annual CUNY sentence processing conference. San Diego, La Jolla, CA: University of California.
   Google Scholar
• Barber, H., & Carreiras, M. (2005). Grammatical gender and number agreement in Spanish: An ERP comparison. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(1), 137–153. https://doi.org/10.1162/0898929052880101
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bock, J. K., & Miller, C. A. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23(1), 45–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(91)90003-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornkessel, I., McElree, B., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2004). Multi-dimensional contributions to garden path strength: Dissociating phrase structure from relational structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(4), 495–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.06.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brennan, J., & Pylkkänen, L. (2012). The time-course and spatial distribution of brain activity associated with sentence processing. Neuroimage, 60(2), 1139–1148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.030
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. Oxford UP.
   Google Scholar
• Carroll, J. M., & Tanenhaus, M. (1978). Functional clauses and sentence segmentation. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 21(4), 793–808. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.2104.793
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Corbett, G. G. (1979). The agreement hierarchy. Journal of Linguistics, 15(2), 203–224. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700016352
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cowan, N. (1995). Attention and memory: An integrated framework. Oxford UP.
   Google Scholar
• Cowan, N., Rouder, J. N., Blume, C. L., & Saults, J. S. (2012). Models of verbal working memory capacity: What does it take to make them work? Psychological Review, 119(3), 480–499. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027791
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davidson, D. J., Hanulíková, A., & Indefrey, P. (2012). Electrophysiological correlates of morphosyntactic integration in German phrasal context. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(2), 288–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.616448
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deane, P. (1991). Limits to attention: A cognitive theory of island phenomena. Cognitive Linguistics, 2(1), 1–64. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1991.2.1.1
   Google Scholar
• de Swart, H., & Farkas, D. (2010). The semantics and pragmatics of plurals. Semantics and Pragmatics, 3(6), 1–54. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.3.6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dillon, B., Mishler, A., Sloggett, S., & Phillips, C. (2013). Contrasting intrusion profiles for agreement and anaphora: Experimental and modeling evidence. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(2), 85–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.04.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eberhard, K. (1997). The marked effect of number on subject-verb agreement. Journal of Memory and Language, 36(2), 147–164. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.2484
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eberhard, Kathleen M, Cutting, J. Cooper, & Bock, Kathryn. (2005). Making syntax of sense: Number agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review, 112(3), 531–559. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.3.531
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elbourne, P. (1999). Some correlations between semantic plurality and quantifier scope. North East Linguistics Society, 29(1), 7.
   Google Scholar
• Farkas, D. F. (2006). The unmarked determiner. In S. Vogeleer & L. Tasmowski de Rijk (Eds.), Non-definiteness and plurality (pp. 81–106). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Fodor, J. A., & Bever, T. G. (1965). The psychological reality of linguistic segments. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 4(5), 414–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(65)80081-0
   Google Scholar
• Fodor, J. A., Bever, T. G., & Garrett, M. F. (1974). The psychology of language: An introduction to psycholinguistics and generative grammar. McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Foraker, S., & McElree, B. (2007). The role of prominence in pronoun resolution: Active versus passive representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 56(3), 357–383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.07.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franck, J., & Wagers, M. (2020). Hierarchical structure and memory mechanisms in agreement attraction. pLoS ONE, 15(5), e0232163. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232163
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6(4), 291–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(78)90002-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garavan, H. (1998). Serial attention within working memory. Memory & Cognition, 26(2), 263–276. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201138
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In A. Marantz, Y. Miyashi, & W. O'Neil (Eds.), Image, Language, Brain: Papers from the First Mind Articulation Project Symposium (pp. 95–126). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Glover, S., & Dixon, P. (2004). Likelihood ratios: A simple and flexible statistic for empirical psychologists. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(5), 791–806. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196706
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2001). Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(6), 1411–1423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.27.6.1411
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2004). Effects of noun phrase type on sentence complexity. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(1), 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.02.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., Johnson, M., & Lee, Y. (2006). Similarity-based interference during language comprehension: Evidence from eye tracking during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(6), 1304–1321. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.6.1304
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Levine, W. H. (2002). Memory-load interference in syntactic processing. Psychological Science, 13(5), 425–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00475
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenberg, J. (1966). Language universals: with special reference to feature hierarchies. Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Gundel, J. K. (1998). Centering theory and the givenness hierarchy: A proposed synthesis. In M. A. Walker, A. K. Joshi, & E. Prince (Eds.), Centering Theory in Discourse (pp. 183–197). Oxford University Press.
   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(4), 556–568. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892900562336
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. M. (1999). Gender electrified: ERP evidence on the syntactic nature of gender processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28(6), 715–728. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023277213129
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harley, H., & Ritter, E. (2002). A feature-geometric analysis of person and number. Language, 78(3), 482–526. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2002.0158
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackendoff, R. (1977). X-bar syntax. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jäger, L. A., Engelmann, F., & Vasishth, S. (2017). Similarity-based interference in sentence comprehension: Literature review and Bayesian meta-analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 316–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jarvella, R. J. (1971). Syntactic processing of connected speech. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10(4), 409–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(71)80040-3
   Google Scholar
• Johns, C. L., Matsuki, K., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2015). Poor readers’ retrieval mechanism: Efficient access is not dependent on reading skill. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1552. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01552
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonides, J., Lewis, R. L., Nee, D. E., Lustig, C. A., Berman, M. G., & Moore, K. S. (2008). The mind and brain of short-term memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 193–224. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093615
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99(1), 122–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.122
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, R. (2021). Feature Agreement in Real-Time Language Comprehension: Interaction of Cognitive and Linguistic Constraints. Dissertation. New York, NY: New York University.
   Google Scholar
• Konieczny, L. (2000). Locality and parsing complexity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(6), 627–645. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026528912821
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kush, D., Johns, C. L., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2019). Prominence-sensitive pronoun resolution: New evidence from the speed-accuracy tradeoff procedure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(7), 1234–1251. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000646
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leu, T. (2008). The internal syntax of determiners. Dissertation. New York, NY: New York University.
   Google Scholar
• Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106(3), 1126–1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy, R. P., & Keller, F. (2013). Expectation and locality effects in German verb-final structures. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(2), 199–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.02.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, R., & Vasishth, S. (2005). An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29(3), 375–419. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_25
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, R. L. (1996). Interference in short-term memory: The magical number two (or three) in sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25(1), 93–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01708421
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, C. C., & Smith, P. L. (2009). Comparing time-accuracy curves: Beyond goodness-of-fit measures. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(1), 190–203. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.1.190
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacMillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (1991). Detection theory: A user’s guide. Cambridge UP.
   Google Scholar
• Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1975). Sentence perception as an interactive parallel process. Science, 189(4198), 226–228. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.189.4198.226
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, A. E., & McElree, B. (2008). A content-addressable pointer mechanism underlies comprehension of verb-phrase ellipsis. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(3), 879–906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.06.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, A. E., & McElree, B. (2018). Retrieval cues and syntactic ambiguity resolution: Speed-accuracy tradeoff evidence. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33(6), 769–783. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2018.1427877
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McElree, B. (1998). Attended and nonattended states in working memory: Accessing categorized structures. Journal of Memory and Language, 38(2), 225–252. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2545
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McElree, B. (2001). Working memory and focal attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(3), 817–835. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.27.3.817
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McElree, B. (2006). Accessing recent events. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 46, 155–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(06)46005-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McElree, B., & Dosher, B. A. (1989). Serial position and set size in short-term memory: The time course of recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118(4), 346–373. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.118.4.346
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McElree, B., & Dosher, B. A. (1993). Serial retrieval processes in the recovery of order information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122(3), 291–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.122.3.291
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McElree, B., Foraker, S., & Dyer, L. (2003). Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(1), 67–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00515-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, G. A., & Chomsky, N. (1963). Finitary models of language users. In R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, & E. Galanter (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology (Volume II, pp. 419–491). John Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Nakatani, K., & Gibson, E. (2008). Distinguishing theories of syntactic expectation cost in sentence comprehension: Evidence from Japanese. Linguistics, 46(1), 6386. https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2008.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nee, D. E., & Jonides, J. (2008). Neural correlates of access to short-term memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(37), 14228–14233. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0802081105
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ness, T., & Meltzer-Asscher, A. (2019). When is the verb a potential gap site? The influence of filler maintenance on the active search for a gap. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34(7), 936–948. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2019.1591471
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norris, M. (2014). A theory of nominal concord. Dissertation. Santa Cruz, CA: UC Santa Cruz.
   Google Scholar
• Norris, M. (2017). Description and analyses of nominal concord (Pt I). Language and Linguistics Compass, 11(11), e12266.
   Google Scholar
• Oberauer, K. (2002). Access to information in working memory: Exploring the focus of attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(3), 411–421. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.28.3.411
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oberauer, K., & Bialkova, S. (2009). Accessing information in working memory: Can the focus of attention grasp two elements at the same time? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(1), 64–87. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014738
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ouwayda, S. (2013). Where plurality is: Agreement and DP structure. In S. Keine & S. Sloggett (Eds.), Proceedings of the 42nd Annual meeting of the North East Linguistic society (pp. 423–436). GLSA Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Öztekin, I., Davachi, L., & McElree, B. (2010). Are representations in working memory distinct from representations in long-term memory? Psychological Science, 21(8), 1123–1133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610376651
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Öztekin, I., McElree, B., Staresina, B. P., & Davachi, L. (2009). Working memory retrieval: Contributions of the left prefrontal cortex, the left posterior parietal cortex, and the hippocampus. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(3), 581–593. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.21016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker, R., Graff, D., Kong, J., Chen, K., & Maeda, K. (2009). English Gigaword (Fourth Edition). Linguistic Data Consortium.
   Google Scholar
• Pearlmutter, N. J., Garnsey, S. M., & Bock, K. (1999). Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(3), 427–456. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2653
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pesetsky, D. (2013). Russian case Morphology and the syntactic categories. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Potter, M. C. (1984). Rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP): A method for studying language processing. In D. E. Kieras & M. A. Just (Eds.), New methods in reading comprehension research (pp. 91–118). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Press.
   Google Scholar
• Potter, M. C., & Lombardi, L. (1992). The regeneration of syntax in short term memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(6), 713–733. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(92)90036-W
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85(2), 59–108. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.85.2.59
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rohde, D. (2005). tGrep2 v. 1.15. http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Tgrep2/
   Google Scholar
• Sachs, J. S. (1967). Recognition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse. Perception & Psychophysics, 2(9), 437–442. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208784
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sauerland, U., Anderssen, J., & Yatsushiro, J. (2005). The plural is semantically unmarked. In S. Kepser & M. Reis (Eds.), Linguistic evidence (pp. 409–430). Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Slioussar, N., & Malko, A. (2016). Gender agreement attraction in Russian: Production and comprehension evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1651. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01651
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, P. W. (2017). The syntax of semantic agreement in English. Journal of Linguistics, 53(4), 823–863. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226716000360
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staub, A., Rayner, K., Pollatsek, A., Hyönä, J., & Majewski, H. (2007). The time course of plausibility effects on eye movements in reading: Evidence from noun-noun compounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(6), 1162–1169. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.6.1162
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Townsend, D. J., & Bever, T. (2001). Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Trubetzkoy, N. S. (1939). Grundzüge der Phonologie [Principles of phonology]. Christiane Baltaxe (trans). University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Unsworth, N., & Engle, R. W. (2008). Speed and accuracy of accessing information in working memory: An individual differences investigation of focus switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(3), 616–630. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.34.3.616
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vainio, S., Hyönä, J., & Pajunen, A. (2008). Processing modifier-head agreement in reading: Evidence for a delayed effect of agreement. Memory & Cognition, 36(2), 329–340. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.2.329
   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(3), 285–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00081-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Dyke, J. A., & McElree, B. (2006). Retrieval interference in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(2), 157–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.03.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vasishth, S., Brüssow, S., Lewis, R. L., & Drenhaus, H. (2008). Processing polarity: How the ungrammatical intrudes on the grammatical. Cognitive Science, 32(4), 685–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210802066865
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vasishth, S., & Lewis, R. L. (2006). Argument-head distance and processing complexity: Explaining both locality and antilocality effects. Language, 82(4), 767–794. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0236
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vergauwe, E., Hardman, K. O., Rouder, J. N., Roemer, E., McAllaster, S., & Cowan, N. (2016). Searching for serial refreshing in working memory: Using response times to track the content of the focus of attention over time. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(6), 1818–1824. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1038-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verhaeghen, P., Cerella, J., & Basak, C. (2004). A working memory workout: How to expand the focus of serial attention from one to four items in 10 hours or less. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(6), 1322–1337. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.6.1322
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verhaeghen, P., & Hoyer, W. J. (2007). Aging, focus switching and task switching in a continuous calculation task: Evidence toward a new working memory control process. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 14(1), 22–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/138255890969357
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villata, S., & Franck, J. (2020). Similarity-based interference in agreement comprehension and production: Evidence from object agreement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46(1), 170–188. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000718
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagers, M., & McElree, B. (2009). Focal attention and the timing of memory retrieval in language comprehension. Paper presented at Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing Conference 15 Sept. 7-9, Barcelona.
   Google Scholar
• Wagers, M. W., Lau, E., & Phillips, C. (2009). Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(2), 206–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.04.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wechsler, S., & Zlatic, L. (2000). A theory of agreement and its application to serbo-croatian. Language, 76(4), 799. https://doi.org/10.2307/417200
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wickelgren, W. A. (1977). Speed-accuracy tradeoff and information processing dynamics. Acta Psychologica, 41(1), 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(77)90012-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wickelgren, W. A., Corbett, A. T., & Dosher, B. A. (1980). Priming and retrieval from short-term memory: A speed accuracy trade-off analysis. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(4), 387–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90276-5
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, Y., & Verhaeghen, P. (2009). Glimpses of a one-speed mind: Focus-switching and search for verbal and visual, and easy and difficult items in working memory. Acta Psychologica, 131(3), 235–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.05.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar