@comment{{This file has been generated by bib2bib 1.96}}
@comment{{Command line: bib2bib -oc vasishth-allpubs2011 -ob allpubs2011.bib -c 'year : "2011"' -c 'author : "Vasishth" or author : "Metzner"' bibcleaned.bib}}
@comment{{This file has been generated by bib2bib 1.74}}
@comment{{Command line: bib2bib /sw/share/texmf/bibtex/vasishth/bib/bibliography.bib}}
@article{hanneetal09,
author = {Sandra Hanne and Irina Sekerina and Shravan Vasishth and Frank Burchert and Ria De Bleser},
journal = {Aphasiology},
year = {2011},
volume = {25},
issue = {2},
pages = {221-244},
abstract = {Background: In addition to the canonical subject-verb-object (SVO) word order, German also allows for non-canonical order (OVS), and the case-marking system supports thematic role interpretation. Previous eye-tracking studies (Kamide et al., 2003; Knoeferle, 2007) have shown that unambiguous case information in non-canonical sentences is processed incrementally. For individuals with agrammatic aphasia, comprehension of non-canonical sentences is at chance level (Burchert et al., 2003). The trace deletion hypothesis (Grodzinsky 1995, 2000) claims that this is due to structural impairments in syntactic representations, which force the individual with aphasia (IWA) to apply a guessing strategy. However, recent studies investigating online sentence processing in aphasia (Caplan et al., 2007; Dickey et al., 2007) found that divergences exist in IWAs' sentence-processing routines depending on whether they comprehended non-canonical sentences correctly or not, pointing rather to a processing deficit explanation.
Aims: The aim of the current study was to investigate agrammatic IWAs' online and offline sentence comprehension simultaneously in order to reveal what online sentence-processing strategies they rely on and how these differ from controls' processing routines. We further asked whether IWAs' offline chance performance for non-canonical sentences does indeed result from guessing.
Methods & Procedures: We used the visual-world paradigm and measured eye movements (as an index of online sentence processing) of controls (N = 8) and individuals with aphasia (N = 7) during a sentence-picture matching task. Additional offline measures were accuracy and reaction times.
Outcomes & Results: While the offline accuracy results corresponded to the pattern predicted by the TDH, IWAs' eye movements revealed systematic differences depending on the response accuracy.
Conclusions: These findings constitute evidence against attributing IWAs' chance performance for non-canonical structures to mere guessing. Instead, our results support processing deficit explanations and characterise the agrammatic parser as deterministic and inefficient: it is slowed down, affected by intermittent deficiencies in performing syntactic operations, and fails to compute reanalysis even when one is detected.},
title = {Chance in agrammatic sentence comprehension: {W}hat does it really mean? {Evidence from Eye Movements of German Agrammatic Aphasics}},
url = {http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/02687038.2010.489256}
}
@incollection{VasishthRochester,
author = {Shravan Vasishth},
booktitle = {Processing and Producing Head-Final Structure},
series = {Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics},
editor = {Hiroko Yamashita and Yuki Hirose and Jerry Packard},
title = {Integration and Prediction in Head-Final Structures},
url = {http://www.ling.uni-potsdam.de/~vasishth/pdfs/VasishthHeadFinal2011.pdf},
pages = {349--367},
year = {2011},
publisher = {Springer}
}
@incollection{logacevvasishth08,
author = {Pavel Loga{\v c}ev and Shravan Vasishth},
booktitle = {Case, Word Order, and Prominence: {P}sycholinguistic and theoretical approaches to argument structure},
editor = {Peter de Swart and Monique Lamers},
volume = {2},
publisher = {Springer},
series = {Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics},
title = {Case matching and conflicting bindings interference},
url = {http://www.ling.uni-potsdam.de/~vasishth/pdfs/LogacevVasishth9inpress.pdf},
year = {2011}
}
@comment{{BibDesk Smart Groups
conditions
comparison
2
key
Vasishthpubs
value
vasishth
version
1
conjunction
0
group name
vasishth
}}
@article{bostonhalevasishthklieglLCP09,
author = {Marisa F. Boston and John T. Hale and Shravan Vasishth and Reinhold Kliegl},
title = {Parallel processing and sentence comprehension difficulty},
year = {2011},
volume = 26,
number = 3,
pages = {301-349},
url = {http://www.ling.uni-potsdam.de/~vasishth/pdfs/Boston-Hale-Vasishth-KlieglInPress.pdf},
abstract = {Eye fixation durations during normal reading correlate with processing difficulty,
but the specific cognitive mechanisms reflected in these measures are not well
understood. This study finds support in German readers’ eye fixations for two
distinct difficulty metrics: surprisal, which reflects the change in probabilities
across syntactic analyses as new words are integrated; and retrieval, which
quantifies comprehension difficulty in terms of working memory constraints.We
examine the predictions of both metrics using a family of dependency parsers
indexed by an upper limit on the number of candidate syntactic analyses they
retain at successive words. Surprisal models all fixation measures and regression
probability. By contrast, retrieval does not model any measure in serial
processing. As more candidate analyses are considered in parallel at each word,
retrieval can account for the same measures as surprisal. This pattern suggests an
important role for ranked parallelism in theories of sentence comprehension.},
journal = {Language and Cognitive Processes}
}
@article{barteketal09,
author = {Brian Bartek and Richard L. Lewis and Shravan Vasishth and Mason Smith},
title = {In Search of On-line Locality Effects in Sentence Comprehension},
journal = {Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition},
url = {http://www.ling.uni-potsdam.de/~vasishth/pdfs/BartekLewisVasishthSmithsubmitted.pdf},
optkey = {},
optmonth = {},
year = {2011},
optannote = {},
volume = {37},
number = {5},
pages = {1178-1198},
abstract = {Many comprehension theories assert that increasing the distance between elements participating in a
linguistic relation (e.g., a verb and a noun phrase argument) increases the difficulty of establishing that
relation during on-line comprehension. Such locality effects are expected to increase reading times and
are thought to reveal properties and limitations of the short-term memory system that supports comprehension.
Despite their theoretical importance and putative ubiquity, however, evidence for on-line
locality effects is quite narrow linguistically and methodologically: It is restricted almost exclusively to
self-paced reading of complex structures involving a particular class of syntactic relation. We present 4
experiments (2 self-paced reading and 2 eyetracking experiments) that demonstrate locality effects in the
course of establishing subject–verb dependencies; locality effects are seen even in materials that can be
read quickly and easily. These locality effects are observable in the earliest possible eye-movement
measures and are of much shorter duration than previously reported effects. To account for the observed
empirical patterns, we outline a processing model of the adaptive control of button pressing and eye
movements. This model makes progress toward the goal of eliminating linking assumptions between
memory constructs and empirical measures in favor of explicit theories of the coordinated control of
motor responses and parsing.}
}
@article{malsburgvasishthsub10,
author = {Titus {von~der~Malsburg} and Shravan Vasishth},
journal = {Journal of Memory and Language},
title = {What is the scanpath signature of syntactic reanalysis?},
year = {2011},
volume = {65},
issue = {2},
pages = {109-127},
abstract = {Which repair strategy does the language system deploy when it gets
garden-pathed and what can regressive eye movements in reading tell us about
reanalysis strategies? Several influential eye-tracking studies on syntactic
reanalysis (Frazier & Rayner 1982, Meseguer et al 2002, Mitchell et al 2008) have
examined scanpaths---sequences of eye fixations---to answer this question.
However, in the absence of a suitable method for analyzing scanpaths, these studies
relied on simplified dependent measures that are arguably ambiguous and hard to
interpret. We address the theoretical question of repair strategy by developing
a new method that quantifies scanpath similarity. Our method reveals several
distinct fixation strategies associated with reanalysis that went undetected in
a previously published data set (Meseguer et al 2002). One prevalent pattern
suggests re-parsing of the sentence, a strategy that has been proposed in the
literature (Frazier & Rayner 1982); however, readers differed tremendously in
how they orchestrated the various fixation strategies. Our results raise the
possibility that the human parsing system non-deterministically adopts different
strategies when confronted with the need to reanalyze.},
url = { http://www.ling.uni-potsdam.de/~malsburg/malsburg_vasishth_JML2011.pdf}
}
@unpublished{malsburgvasishthsub11,
author = {Titus {von~der~Malsburg} and Shravan Vasishth},
title = {Scanpath patterns in reading reveal syntactic under-specification and reanalysis strategies},
year = {2011},
note = {submitted},
abstract = {What theories best characterize the parsing processes triggered upon encountering ambiguity, and what effects do these processes have on eye movement patterns?
An eye-tracking study involving adjunct attachment ambiguities in Spanish showed that although conventional dependent measures favored the unrestricted race model, when we additionally took eye-movement \textit{patterns} into account, the evidence was consistent only with the good-enough theory of parsing.A scanpath analysis further showed that rereading occurred more often in high working-memory capacity participants, which verifies a surprising prediction of the good-enough parsing account: high-capacity participants tend to commit to a parse more often than low-capacity participants, leading to more errors and a greater need to reanalyze. These findings also have broader implications for models of reading processes: Late regressive eye movements triggered in response to disambiguation suggest that the coupling of the eye and parser may not be as tight as assumed in current computational models of reading.},
url = { http://www.ling.uni-potsdam.de/~malsburg/malsburg_vasishth_subJML2011.pdf}
}
@article{drenhauszimmermannvasishth10,
author = {H. Drenhaus and M. Zimmermann and S. Vasishth},
journal = {Journal of Neurolinguistics},
title = {Exhaustiveness effects in clefts are not truth-functional},
volume = {24},
issue = {3},
pages = {320-337},
abstract = {While it is widely acknowledged in the formal semantic literature that both the truth-functional focus particle only and it-clefts convey exhaustiveness, the nature and source of exhaustiveness effects with it-clefts remain contested. Based on an event-related brain potentials (ERPs) study on only-foci and it-clefts, we provide experimental evidence that the violation or cancelation of exhaustive readings involve different underlying processes in the two structural environments.},
url = {http://www.ling.uni-potsdam.de/~vasishth/pdfs/DrenhausZimmermannVasishthinpress.pdf},
year = {2011}
}
@article{VSS2010,
author = {Shravan Vasishth and Rukshin Shaher and Narayanan Srinivasan},
journal = {Journal of South Asian Linguistics},
title = {The role of clefting, word order and given-new ordering in sentence comprehension: {Evidence from Hindi}},
year = {2011},
abstract = {Two Hindi eyetracking studies show that clefting a noun results in greater processing difficulty initially,
due to the extra processing steps involved in encoding a clefted noun (e.g., for computing the
exhaustiveness interpretation). However, this extra difficulty in encoding a clefted noun results in a
processing advantage when the clefted noun needs to be retrieved later on in the sentence -- the clefted
noun is retrieved faster in subsequent processing compared to its non-clefted counterpart. This effect
is short-lived, however; it does not last beyond the current sentence. We also show that given-new
ordering yields a processing advantage over new-given order, but this is only seen after the whole
sentence is processed, i.e., it is a late effect that occurs after syntactic processing is completed. Finally,
following up on work on German by Hoernig et al. (2005), we present evidence that non-canonical order
can be processed more easily than canonical order given appropriate context.},
url = {http://www.ling.uni-potsdam.de/~vasishth/pdfs/VSS-JSAL2010submitted.pdf}
}
@article{VasishthDrenhausDnD,
author = {Shravan Vasishth and Heiner Drenhaus},
journal = {Dialogue and Discourse},
title = {Locality in {German}},
volume = {1},
issue = {2},
year = {2011},
pages = {59-82},
url = {http://elanguage.net/journals/index.php/dad/article/view/615},
abstract = {Three experiments (self-paced reading, eyetracking and an
ERP study) show that in relative clauses, increasing the distance be
tween the relativized noun and the relative-clause verb makes it more
difficult to process the relative-clause verb (the so-called locality effect).
This result is consistent with the predictions of several theories (Gibson 2000, Lewis and Vasishth 2005), and contradicts the recent claim
(Levy 2008) that in relative-clause structures increasing argument-verb
distance makes processing easier at the verb. Levy's expectation-based
account predicts that the expectation for a verb becomes sharper as dis-
tance is increased and therefore processing becomes easier at the verb.
We argue that, in addition to expectation effects (which are seen in the
eyetracking study in first-pass regression probability), processing load
also increases with increasing distance. This contradicts Levy's claim
that heightened expectation leads to lower processing cost. Dependency-
resolution cost and expectation-based facilitation are jointly responsible
for determining processing cost.}
}
@book{vasishthbroe,
address = {Heidelberg},
author = {Shravan Vasishth and Michael Broe},
publisher = {Springer},
year = {2011},
title = {The Foundations of Statistics: A Simulation-based Approach},
url = {http://www.ling.uni-potsdam.de/~vasishth/book.html}
}
@incollection{chenjaegervasishth,
title = {{How structure sensitive is the parser? Evidence from Mandarin Chinese}},
author = {Zhong Chen and Lena J{\"a}ger and Shravan Vasishth},
year = {2011},
abstract = {no abstract},
booktitle = {{Empirical approaches to linguistic theory: Studies of meaning and
structure}},
series = {Studies in Generative Grammar},
editors = {Britta Stolterfoht and Sam Featherston},
publisher = {Mouton de Gruyter},
note = {in press}
}
@inproceedings{PatilVasishthLewisCUNY2011,
address = {Palo Alto, CA},
author = {Umesh Patil and Shravan Vasishth and Richard Lewis},
booktitle = {{CUNY Sentence Processing Conference}},
title = {Early retrieval interference in syntax-guided antecedent search},
year = {2011}
}
@inproceedings{MalsburgVasishthCUNY2011,
address = {Palo Alto, CA},
author = {Titus von der Malsburg and Shravan Vasishth},
booktitle = {{CUNY Sentence Processing Conference}},
title = {Eye-movement strategies for dealing with garden-path sentences},
year = {2011}
}
@inproceedings{ShaherVasishthSrinivasanCUNY2011,
address = {Palo Alto, CA},
author = {Rukshin Shaher and Shravan Vasishth and Narayanan Srinivasan},
booktitle = {{CUNY Sentence Processing Conference}},
title = {Clefting and left-dislocation facilitate accessibility at the discourse-level},
year = {2011}
}
@inproceedings{PatiletalCUNY2011,
address = {Palo Alto, CA},
author = {Umesh Patil and Sandra Hanne and Shravan Vasishth and Ria De Bleser and Frank Burchert},
booktitle = {{CUNY Sentence Processing Conference}},
title = {Modeling aphasic sentence comprehension in a cue-based retrieval architecture},
year = {2011}
}
@inproceedings{ChenVasishthCUNY2011,
address = {Palo Alto, CA},
author = {Zhong Chen and Shravan Vasishth},
booktitle = {{CUNY Sentence Processing Conference}},
title = {Does the parser exclusively use structure-sensitive search in reflexives? {Evidence from Mandarin Chinese}},
year = {2011}
}
@inproceedings{MalsburgVasishthXSymp2011,
author = {von der Malsburg, Titus and Shravan Vasishth},
title = {Strategies for dealing with attachment ambiguities in Spanish},
year = {2011},
address = {San Sebastián, Spain},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the 10th Symposium of Psycholinguistics}
}
@inproceedings{MalsburgKlieglVasishthECEM2011,
author = {von der Malsburg, Titus and Reinhold Kliegl and Shravan Vasishth},
title = {A scanpath measure reveals effects of age of reader and syntactic complexity of sentences},
year = {2011},
editors = {Vitu, F. and Castet, E. and Goffart, L.},
address = {Marseilles, France},
page = {254},
note = {Published in Journal of Eye Movement Research, 4(3)},
booktitle = {{Abstracts of the 16th European Conference on Eye Movements}}
}
@inproceedings{Metzner2011b,
address = {Berlin, Germany},
author = {Metzner, Paul},
booktitle = {{QITL: Quantitative Investigations in Theoretical Linguistics}},
title = {{Can the asymmetric effect of implicit causality be explained through usage patterns?}},
year = {2011}
}
@inproceedings{Metzner2011d,
address = {Halle, Germany},
author = {Metzner, Paul},
booktitle = {{TeaP: Tagung experimentell arbeitender Psychologen}},
title = {{Die Interaktion von impliziter Kausalit\"{a}t und Arbeitsged\"{a}chtnis bei der Satzverarbeitung}},
year = {2011}
}
@inproceedings{Metzner2011c,
address = {Paris, France},
author = {Metzner, Paul},
booktitle = {{AMLaP: Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing}},
title = {{Do people differ in their use of heuristics in sentence processing?}},
year = {2011}
}
@inproceedings{PatilVasishthLewisPsycholinguistics2011,
address = {San Sebasti\'{a}n, Spain},
author = {Umesh Patil and Shravan Vasishth and Richard Lewis},
booktitle = {{International Symposium of Psycholinguistics}},
title = {Are grammatical constraints immune to retrieval interference?},
year = {2011}
}
@inproceedings{PatiletalAoA2011,
address = {Montr\'{e}al, Canada},
author = {Umesh Patil and Sandra Hanne and Shravan Vasishth and Ria De Bleser and Frank Burchert},
booktitle = {{Academy of Aphasia}},
title = {Modeling offline and online (eye movements) sentence comprehension in aphasia using the cue-based retrieval architecture},
year = {2011}
}
@inproceedings{Hanne:2011a,
author = {Hanne, S. and Patil, U. and Burchert, F. and {De~Bleser}, R. and Vasishth, S.},
booktitle = {{Proceedings of Science of Aphasia XII}},
title = {Aphasic sentence comprehension disorders from a computational modeling perspective},
year = {2011}
}
@inproceedings{Engelmann:2011,
author = {Engelmann, F. and Vasishth, S.},
booktitle = {Proceedings of European Conference on Eye Movements},
title = {Language processing and eye-movement models},
address = {Marseille, France},
year = {2011}
}
@inproceedings{shaher_clefting_2011,
address = {Amherst, {MA}},
title = {Clefting and left-dislocation facilitate accessibility at the discourse-level},
author = {Shaher, Rukshin and Vasishth, Shravan and Srinivasan, Narayanan},
year = {2011}
}
This file was generated by bibtex2html 1.92.