How do linguistic illusions arise? Rational inference and good-enough processing as competing latent processes within individuals

References

• Bader, M., & Meng, M. (2018). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(8), 1286–1311.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Batchelder, W. H., & Riefer, D. M. (1999). Theoretical and empirical review of multinomial process tree modeling. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6(1), 57–86. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210812
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bellur, S., & Sundar, S. S. (2014). How can we tell when a heuristic has been used? Design and analysis strategies for capturing the operation of heuristics. Communication Methods and Measures, 8(2), 116–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2014.903390
   Google Scholar
• Bhatia, S., & Dillon, B. (2022). Processing agreement in Hindi: When agreement feeds attraction. Journal of Memory and Language, 125, Article 104322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2022.104322
   Google Scholar
• Bock, K., Eberhard, K. M., Cutting, J. C., Meyer, A. S., & Schriefers, H. (2001). Some attractions of verb agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 43(2), 83–128. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0753
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Box, G. E. P. (1979). Robustness in the strategy of scientific model building. In R. L. Launer & G. N. Wilkinson (Eds.), Robustness in statistics (pp. 201–236). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bradac, J. J., Martin, L. W., Elliott, N. D., & Tardy, C. H. (1980). On the neglected side of linguistic science: Multivariate studies of sentence judgment. Linguistics, 18, 967–995. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1980.18.11-12.967
   Google Scholar
• Brehm, L., Jackson, C. N., & Miller, K. L. (2021). Probabilistic online processing of sentence anomalies. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 36(8), 959–983. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2021.1900579
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, V. A. (2021). An introduction to linear mixed-effects modeling in R. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(1), Article 2515245920960351. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920960351
   Google Scholar
• Bürkner, P.-C. (2017). brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 80(1), 1–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bürkner, P.-C. (2024). Estimating multivariate models with BRMS. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/brms/vignettes/brms_multivariate.html.
   Google Scholar
• Cai, Z. G., Haslett, D. A., Duan, X., Wang, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2023). Does ChatGPT resemble humans in language use? arXiv preprint, 2303.08014.
   Google Scholar
• Cai, Z. G., Zhao, N., & Pickering, M. J. (2022). How do people interpret implausible sentences?. Cognition, 225, Article 105101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105101
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chater, N., & Oaksford, M. (1999). Ten years of the rational analysis of cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(2), 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(98)01273-X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In C. S and T. Y (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73–96). The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, S., Nathaniel, S., Ryskin, R., & Gibson, E. (2023). The effect of context on noisy-channel sentence comprehension. Cognition, 238, Article 105503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105503
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Christianson, K. (2008). Sensitivity to syntactic changes in garden path sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 37, 391–403. https://doi.org/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. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(5), 817–828. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1134603
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christianson, K., Dempsey, J., Tsiola, A., & Goldshtein, M. (2022). What if they're just not that into you (or your experiment)? On motivation and psycholinguistics. In K. Federmeier (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation – Advances in research and theory (pp. 51–88). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J. F., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42(4), 368–407. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0752
   PubMed 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(2), 538–544.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook, P., & Stevenson, S. (2010). No sentence is too confusing to ignore. In Proceedings of the 2010 Workshop on NLP and Linguistics: Finding the Common Ground (pp. 61–69). Association for Computational Linguistics.
   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(1), 21–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/016909698386582
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Degen, J. (2023). The rational speech act framework. Annual Review of Linguistics, 9, 519–540. https://doi.org/10.1146/linguistics.2023.9.issue-1
   Google Scholar
• Dempsey, J., Tsiola, A., Chantavarin, S., Ferreira, F., & Christianson, K. (2023). Nonce word evidence for the misinterpretation of implausible events. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 35(5), 1–19.
   Google Scholar
• Dentella, V., Murphy, E., Marcus, G., & Leivada, E. (2023). Testing AI performance on less frequent aspects of language reveals insensitivity to underlying meaning. arXiv preprint, 2302.12313.
   Google Scholar
• Drenhaus, H., Saddy, D., & Frisch, S. (2005). Processing negative polarity items: When negation comes through the backdoor. In S. Kepser & M. Reis (Eds.), Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical, and computational perspectives (pp. 145–165). Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Dwivedi, V. D. (2013). Interpreting quantifier scope ambiguity: Evidence of heuristic first, algorithmic second processing. PloS One, 8(11), e81461. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0081461
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Erdfelder, E., Auer, T.-S., Hilbig, B. E., Aßfalg, A., Moshagen, M., & Nadarevic, L. (2009). Multinomial processing tree models: A review of the literature. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 217(3), 108–124.
   Google Scholar
• Erickson, T. D., & Mattson, M. E. (1981). From words to meaning: A semantic illusion. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(5), 540–551. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90165-1
   Google Scholar
• Evans, N. J., & Wagenmakers, E. -J. (2019). Evidence accumulation models: Current limitations and future directions. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 16(2), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.16.2.p073
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47(2), 164–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00005-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 11–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00158
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., Engelhardt, P. E., & Jones, M. W. (2009). Good enough language processing: A satisficing approach. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 1, pp. 413–418). Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., & Huettig, F. (2023). Fast and slow language processing: A window into dual-process models of cognition [Open Peer commentary on De Neys]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 46, e121. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X22003041.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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/lnco.2007.1.issue-1-2
   Google Scholar
• Fortuin, E. (2014). Deconstructing a verbal illusion: The ‘No X is too Y to Z’ construction and the rhetoric of negation. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(2), 249–292. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0014
   Google Scholar
• Frank, S. L., & Ernst, P. (2019). Judgements about double-embedded relative clauses differ between languages. Psychological Research, 83(7), 1581–1593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1014-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frank, S. L., Ernst, P., Thompson, R. L., & Cozijn, R. (2021). The missing-VP effect in readers of English as a second language. Memory & Cognition, 49(6), 1204–1219. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-021-01159-0
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Frazier, L. (2015). Two interpretive systems for natural language?. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 44, 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-014-9328-0
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Frazier, L., & Clifton, Jr., C. (2015). Without his shirt off he saved the child from almost drowning: Interpreting an uncertain input. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(6), 635–647. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2014.995109
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Futrell, R., Gibson, E., & Levy, R. P. (2020). Lossy-context surprisal: An information-theoretic model of memory effects in sentence processing. Cognitive Science, 44(3), e12814. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.v44.3
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gibson, E., Bergen, L., & Piantadosi, S. T. (2013). Rational integration of noisy evidence and prior semantic expectations in sentence interpretation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(20), 8051–8056. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1216438110
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, E., & Thomas, J. (1999). Memory limitations and structural forgetting: The perception of complex ungrammatical sentences as grammatical. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14(3), 225–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/016909699386293
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer, G., & Selten, R. (2002). Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox. MIT press.
   Google Scholar
• Glenberg, A. M., Wilkinson, A. C., & Epstein, W. (1982). The illusion of knowing: Failure in the self-assessment of comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 10(6), 597–602. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202442
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goel, V., & Vartanian, O. (2011). Negative emotions can attenuate the influence of beliefs on logical reasoning. Cognition and Emotion, 25(1), 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931003593942
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldberg, A. E., & Ferreira, F. (2022). Good-enough language production. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26(4), 300–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2022.01.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldshtein, M. (2021). Going beyond our means: A proposal for improving psycholinguistic methods [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.
   Google Scholar
• Hahn, M., Futrell, R., Levy, R., & Gibson, E. (2022). A resource-rational model of human processing of recursive linguistic structure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(43), e2122602119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2122602119
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hale, J. (2001). A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. In Second Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Hannon, B., & Daneman, M. (2004). Shallow semantic processing of text: An individual-differences account. Discourse Processes, 37(3), 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3703_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Häussler, J., & Bader, M. (2015). An interference account of the missing-VP effect. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 766.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hayes, B. K., Stephens, R. G., Lee, M. D., Dunn, J. C., Kaluve, A., Choi-Christou, J., & Cruz, N. (2022). Always look on the bright side of logic? testing explanations of intuitive sensitivity to logic in perceptual tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 48(11), 1598–1617.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Heathcote, A., & Matzke, D. (2022). Winner takes all! what are race models, and why and how should psychologists use them?. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 31(5), 383–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214221095852
   Google Scholar
• Huang, K.-J., & Staub, A. (2021a). Using eye tracking to investigate failure to notice word transpositions in reading. Cognition, 216, Article 104846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104846
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Huang, K.-J., & Staub, A. (2021b). Why do readers fail to notice word transpositions, omissions, and repetitions? a review of recent evidence and theory. Language and Linguistics Compass, 15(7), e12434. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.v15.7
   Google Scholar
• Jacoby, W. G. (2000). Loess: A nonparametric, graphical tool for depicting relationships between variables. Electoral Studies, 19(4), 577–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-3794(99)00028-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamide, Y., & Kukona, A. (2018). The influence of globally ungrammatical local syntactic constraints on real-time sentence comprehension: Evidence from the visual world paradigm and reading. Cognitive Science, 42(8), 2976–2998. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.2018.42.issue-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keshev, M., & Meltzer-Asscher, A. (2021). Noisy is better than rare: Comprehenders compromise subject-verb agreement to form more probable linguistic structures. Cognitive Psychology, 124, Article 101359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2020.101359
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kuperberg, G. R. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research, 1146, 23–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.12.063
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuperberg, G. R. (2016). Separate streams or probabilistic inference? What the N400 can tell us about the comprehension of events. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(5), 602–616. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1130233
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langsford, S., Stephens, R. G., Dunn, J. C., & Lewis, R. L. (2019). In search of the factors behind naive sentence judgments: A state trace analysis of grammaticality and acceptability ratings. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2886. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02886
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lee, P.-S., & Sewell, D. K. (2024). A revised diffusion model for conflict tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 31(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02288-0
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Leivada, E. (2020). Language processing at its trickiest: Grammatical illusions and heuristics of judgment. Languages, 5(3), 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages5030029
   Google Scholar
• Levy, R. (2008a). 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. (2008b). A noisy-channel model of human sentence comprehension under uncertain input. In Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 234–243). Association for Computational Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Levy, R. (2011). Integrating surprisal and uncertain-input models in online sentence comprehension: Formal techniques and empirical results. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (pp. 1055–1065). Association for Computational Linguistics.
   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, 106(50), 21086–21090. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0907664106
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, J., & Ettinger, A. (2023). Heuristic interpretation as rational inference: A computational model of the n400 and p600 in language processing. Cognition, 233, Article 105359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105359
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lissón, P., Pregla, D., Nicenboim, B., Paape, D., M. L. Van het Nederend, Burchert, F., Stadie, N., Caplan, D., & Vasishth, S. (2021). A computational evaluation of two models of retrieval processes in sentence processing in aphasia. Cognitive Science, 45(4), e12956. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.v45.4
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Logačev, P., & Vasishth, S. (2016). A multiple-channel model of task-dependent ambiguity resolution in sentence comprehension. Cognitive Science, 40(2), 266–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.2016.40.issue-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meng, M., & Bader, M. (2021). Does comprehension (sometimes) go wrong for noncanonical sentences? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021820947940
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muller, H. E. (2022). What could go wrong? Linguistic illusions and incremental interpretation [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Maryland, College Park.
   Google Scholar
• Nicenboim, B., & Vasishth, S. (2018). Models of retrieval in sentence comprehension: A computational evaluation using Bayesian hierarchical modeling. Journal of Memory and Language, 99, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.08.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Connor, E. (2015). Comparative illusions at the syntax-semantics interface [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Southern California].
   Google Scholar
• Orth, W., Yoshida, M., & Sloggett, S. (2021). Negative polarity item (NPI) illusion is a quantification phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 47(6), 906–947.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Paape, D. (2023). When transformer models are more compositional than humans: The case of the depth charge illusion. Experiments in Linguistic Meaning, 2, 202–218. https://doi.org/10.3765/elm.2.5370
   Google Scholar
• Paape, D., Vasishth, S., & von der Malsburg, T. (2020). Quadruplex negatio invertit? The on-line processing of depth charge sentences. Journal of Semantics, 37(4), 509–555. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffaa009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paape, D., & Zimmermann, M. (2020). Conditionals on crutches: Expanding the modal horizon. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung (Vol. 24, pp. 108–126). University of Konstanz.
   Google Scholar
• Palan, S., & Schitter, C. (2018). Prolific.ac – A subject pool for online experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 17, 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2017.12.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker, D., & An, A. (2018). Not all phrases are equally attractive: Experimental evidence for selective agreement attraction effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1566. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01566
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker, D., & Phillips, C. (2016). Negative polarity illusions and the format of hierarchical encodings in memory. Cognition, 157, 321–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.08.016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Seli, P., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2012). Analytic cognitive style predicts religious and paranormal belief. Cognition, 123(3), 335–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.03.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips, C., Wagers, M. W., & Lau, E. F. (2011). Grammatical illusions and selective fallibility in real-time language comprehension. In J. Runner (Ed.), Experiments at the interfaces (pp. 147–180). Brill.
   Google Scholar
• Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4), 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12001495
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piironen, J., & Vehtari, A. (2017). Comparison of Bayesian predictive methods for model selection. Statistics and Computing, 27, 711–735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11222-016-9649-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poliak, M., Ryskin, R., Braginsky, M., & Gibson, E. (2023). It is not what you say but how you say it: Evidence from Russian shows robust effects of the structural prior on noisy channel inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 50(4), 637–649.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pöppel, J. (2023). Models for satisficing mentalizing [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Bielefeld.
   Google Scholar
• Poppels, T., & Levy, R. (2016). Structure-sensitive noise inference: Comprehenders expect exchange errors. In A. Papafragou, D. Grodner, D. Mirman, & J. Trueswell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Ratcliff, R., Smith, P. L., Brown, S. D., & McKoon, G. (2016). Diffusion decision model: Current issues and history. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(4), 260–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.01.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Revelle, W. (2023). psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. [R package version 2.3.3]. Northwestern University. Evanston, Illinois.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, S., & Pashler, H. (2000). How persuasive is a good fit? A comment on theory testing. Psychological Review, 107(2), 358. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.107.2.358
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rohaut, B., & Naccache, L. (2017). Disentangling conscious from unconscious cognitive processing with event-related EEG potentials. Revue Neurologique, 173(7–8), 521–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurol.2017.08.001
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rouder, J. N., Province, J. M., Morey, R. D., Gomez, P., & Heathcote, A. (2015). The lognormal race: A cognitive-process model of choice and latency with desirable psychometric properties. Psychometrika, 80, 491–513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-013-9396-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryskin, R., Futrell, R., Kiran, S., & Gibson, E. (2018). Comprehenders model the nature of noise in the environment. Cognition, 181, 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.08.018
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryskin, R., Stearns, L., Bergen, L., Eddy, M., Fedorenko, E., & Gibson, E. (2021). An ERP index of real-time error correction within a noisy-channel framework of human communication. Neuropsychologia, 158, Article 107855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2021.107855
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sanford, A. J., Leuthold, H., Bohan, J., & Sanford, A. J. (2011). Anomalies at the borderline of awareness: An ERP study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(3), 514–523. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21370
   PubMed 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(9), 382–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01958-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlesinger, I. M. (1975). Why a sentence in which a sentence in which a sentence is embedded is embedded is difficult. Linguistics, 13(153), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1975.13.153.53
   Google Scholar
• Schwarz, F., & Zehr, J. (2021). Tutorial: Introduction to PCIbex – An open-science platform for online experiments: Design, data-collection and code-sharing. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 43, No. 43). Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Selten, R. (1990). Bounded rationality. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE)/Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft, 146(4), 649–658.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shin, U., Yi, E., & Song, S. (2023). Investigating a neural language model's replicability of psycholinguistic experiments: A case study of NPI licensing. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 937656.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63(2), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042769
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1972). Theories of bounded rationality. Decision and Organization, 1, 161–176.
   Google Scholar
• Solcz, S. (2011). Not all syllogisms are created equal: Varying premise believability reveals differences between conditional and categorical syllogisms [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Waterloo.
   Google Scholar
• Stan Development Team (2023). RStan: The R interface to Stan [R package version 2.26.8]. https://mc-stan.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Stella, M., & Engelhardt, P. E. (2022). Use of parsing heuristics in the comprehension of passive sentences: Evidence from dyslexia and individual differences. Brain Sciences, 12(2), 209. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12020209
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stupple, E. J., Ball, L. J., Evans, J. S. B., & Kamal-Smith, E. (2011). When logic and belief collide: Individual differences in reasoning times support a selective processing model. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23(8), 931–941. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2011.589381
   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. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.1.201
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teodorescu, A. R., & Usher, M. (2013). Disentangling decision models: From independence to competition. Psychological Review, 120(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030776
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tessler, M. H., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Goodman, N. D. (2022). Logic, probability, and pragmatics in syllogistic reasoning. Topics in Cognitive Science, 14(3), 574–601. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.v14.3
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Trippas, D., Kellen, D., Singmann, H., Pennycook, G., Koehler, D. J., Fugelsang, J. A., & Dubé, C. (2018). Characterizing belief bias in syllogistic reasoning: A hierarchical Bayesian meta-analysis of ROC data. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 2141–2174. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1460-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trippas, D., Pennycook, G., Verde, M. F., & Handley, S. J. (2015). Better but still biased: Analytic cognitive style and belief bias. Thinking & Reasoning, 21(4), 431–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2015.1016450
   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
• Vehtari, A., Gabry, J., Yao, Y., & Gelman, A. (2019). Loo: Efficient leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC for Bayesian models [R package version 2.1.0]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=loo.
   Google Scholar
• Vehtari, A., Gelman, A., & Gabry, J. (2015). Pareto smoothed importance sampling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1507.02646.
   Google Scholar
• Vehtari, A., Gelman, A., & Gabry, J. (2017). Practical Bayesian model evaluation using leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC. Statistics and Computing, 27, 1413–1432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11222-016-9696-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vehtari, A., & Ojanen, J. (2012). A survey of Bayesian predictive methods for model assessment, selection and comparison. Statistics Surveys, 6, 142–228. https://doi.org/10.1214/12-SS102
   Google Scholar
• von der Malsburg, T., & Vasishth, S. (2013). Scanpaths reveal syntactic underspecification and reanalysis strategies. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(10), 1545–1578. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.728232
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagers, M. W., Lau, E. F., & 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
• Wason, P. C., & Reich, S. S. (1979). A verbal illusion. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31(4), 591–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640747908400750
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wellwood, A., Pancheva, R., Hacquard, V., & Phillips, C. (2018). The anatomy of a comparative illusion. Journal of Semantics, 35(3), 543–583. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffy014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wray, A. (1998). Protolanguage as a holistic system for social interaction. Language & Communication, 18, 47–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(97)00033-5
   Google Scholar
• Xiang, M., Grove, J., & Giannakidou, A. (2013). Dependency-dependent interference: NPI interference, agreement attraction, and global pragmatic inferences. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 708. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00708
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yadav, H., Paape, D., Smith, G., Dillon, B. W., & Vasishth, S. (2022). Individual differences in cue weighting in sentence comprehension: An evaluation using approximate Bayesian computation. Open Mind, 6, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00052
   Google Scholar
• Yadav, H., Smith, G., Reich, S., & Vasishth, S. (2023). Number feature distortion modulates cue-based retrieval in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 129, Article 104400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2022.104400
   Google Scholar
• Yarkoni, T., & Westfall, J. (2017). Choosing prediction over explanation in psychology: Lessons from machine learning. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1100–1122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617693393
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, Y., Gibson, E., & Davis, F. (2023). Can language models be tricked by language illusions? Easier with syntax, harder with semantics. arXiv preprint, 2311.01386.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, Y., Ryskin, R., & Gibson, E. (2023). A noisy-channel approach to depth-charge illusions. Cognition, 232, Article 105346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105346
   PubMedGoogle Scholar