@misc{NicenboimVasishthGatteietal.2015,
  author    = {Nicenboim, Bruno and Vasishth, Shravan and Gattei, Carolina and Sigman, Mariano and Kliegl, Reinhold},
  title     = {Working memory differences in long-distance dependency resolution},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-75694},
  pages     = {16},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {There is a wealth of evidence showing that increasing the distance between an argument and its head leads to more processing effort, namely, locality effects; these are usually associated with constraints in working memory (DLT: Gibson, 2000; activation-based model: Lewis and Vasishth, 2005). In SOV languages, however, the opposite effect has been found: antilocality (see discussion in Levy et al., 2013). Antilocality effects can be explained by the expectation-based approach as proposed by Levy (2008) or by the activation-based model of sentence processing as proposed by Lewis and Vasishth (2005). We report an eye-tracking and a self-paced reading study with sentences in Spanish together with measures of individual differences to examine the distinction between expectation- and memory-based accounts, and within memory-based accounts the further distinction between DLT and the activation-based model. The experiments show that (i) antilocality effects as predicted by the expectation account appear only for high-capacity readers; (ii) increasing dependency length by interposing material that modifies the head of the dependency (the verb) produces stronger facilitation than increasing dependency length with material that does not modify the head; this is in agreement with the activation-based model but not with the expectation account; and (iii) a possible outcome of memory load on low-capacity readers is the increase in regressive saccades (locality effects as predicted by memory-based accounts) or, surprisingly, a speedup in the self-paced reading task; the latter consistent with good-enough parsing (Ferreira et al., 2002). In sum, the study suggests that individual differences in working memory capacity play a role in dependency resolution, and that some of the aspects of dependency resolution can be best explained with the activation-based model together with a prediction component.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{NicenboimLogacevGatteietal.2016,
  author    = {Nicenboim, Bruno and Logacev, Pavel and Gattei, Carolina and Vasishth, Shravan},
  title     = {When High-Capacity Readers Slow Down and Low-Capacity Readers Speed Up},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-90663},
  pages     = {1 -- 24},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {We examined the effects of argument-head distance in SVO and SOV languages (Spanish and German), while taking into account readers' working memory capacity and controlling for expectation (Levy, 2008) and other factors. We predicted only locality effects, that is, a slowdown produced by increased dependency distance (Gibson, 2000; Lewis and Vasishth, 2005). Furthermore, we expected stronger locality effects for readers with low working memory capacity. Contrary to our predictions, low-capacity readers showed faster reading with increased distance, while high-capacity readers showed locality effects. We suggest that while the locality effects are compatible with memory-based explanations, the speedup of low-capacity readers can be explained by an increased probability of retrieval failure. We present a computational model based on ACT-R built under the previous assumptions, which is able to give a qualitative account for the present data and can be tested in future research. Our results suggest that in some cases, interpreting longer RTs as indexing increased processing difficulty and shorter RTs as facilitation may be too simplistic: The same increase in processing difficulty may lead to slowdowns in high-capacity readers and speedups in low-capacity ones. Ignoring individual level capacity differences when investigating locality effects may lead to misleading conclusions.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{LogačevVasishth2016,
  author    = {Logačev, Pavel and Vasishth, Shravan},
  title     = {Understanding underspecification},
  doi       = {10.1080/17470218.2015.1134602},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-93441},
  pages     = {996 -- 1012},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Swets et al. (2008. Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading. Memory and Cognition, 36(1), 201-216) presented evidence that the so-called ambiguity advantage [Traxler et al. (1998). Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(4), 558-592], which has been explained in terms of the Unrestricted Race Model, can equally well be explained by assuming underspecification in ambiguous conditions driven by task-demands. Specifically, if comprehension questions require that ambiguities be resolved, the parser tends to make an attachment: when questions are about superficial aspects of the target sentence, readers tend to pursue an underspecification strategy. It is reasonable to assume that individual differences in strategy will play a significant role in the application of such strategies, so that studying average behaviour may not be informative. In order to study the predictions of the good-enough processing theory, we implemented two versions of underspecification: the partial specification model (PSM), which is an implementation of the Swets et al. proposal, and a more parsimonious version, the non-specification model (NSM). We evaluate the relative fit of these two kinds of underspecification to Swets et al.'s data; as a baseline, we also fitted three models that assume no underspecification. We find that a model without underspecification provides a somewhat better fit than both underspecification models, while the NSM model provides a better fit than the PSM. We interpret the results as lack of unambiguous evidence in favour of underspecification; however, given that there is considerable existing evidence for good-enough processing in the literature, it is reasonable to assume that some underspecification might occur. Under this assumption, the results can be interpreted as tentative evidence for NSM over PSM. More generally, our work provides a method for choosing between models of real-time processes in sentence comprehension that make qualitative predictions about the relationship between several dependent variables. We believe that sentence processing research will greatly benefit from a wider use of such methods.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{StoneNicenboimVasishthetal.2022,
  author    = {Stone, Kate and Nicenboim, Bruno and Vasishth, Shravan and R{\"o}sler, Frank},
  title     = {Understanding the effects of constraint and predictability in ERP},
  series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {829},
  issn      = {1866-8364},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-58759},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-587594},
  pages     = {71},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Intuitively, strongly constraining contexts should lead to stronger probabilistic representations of sentences in memory. Encountering unexpected words could therefore be expected to trigger costlier shifts in these representations than expected words. However, psycholinguistic measures commonly used to study probabilistic processing, such as the N400 event-related potential (ERP) component, are sensitive to word predictability but not to contextual constraint. Some research suggests that constraint-related processing cost may be measurable via an ERP positivity following the N400, known as the anterior post-N400 positivity (PNP). The PNP is argued to reflect update of a sentence representation and to be distinct from the posterior P600, which reflects conflict detection and reanalysis. However, constraint-related PNP findings are inconsistent. We sought to conceptually replicate Federmeier et al. (2007) and Kuperberg et al. (2020), who observed that the PNP, but not the N400 or the P600, was affected by constraint at unexpected but plausible words. Using a pre-registered design and statistical approach maximising power, we demonstrated a dissociated effect of predictability and constraint: strong evidence for predictability but not constraint in the N400 window, and strong evidence for constraint but not predictability in the later window. However, the constraint effect was consistent with a P600 and not a PNP, suggesting increased conflict between a strong representation and unexpected input rather than greater update of the representation. We conclude that either a simple strong/weak constraint design is not always sufficient to elicit the PNP, or that previous PNP constraint findings could be an artifact of smaller sample size.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{JaegerBenzRoeseretal.2015,
  author    = {J{\"a}ger, Lena Ann and Benz, Lena and Roeser, Jens and Dillon, Brian W. and Vasishth, Shravan},
  title     = {Teasing apart Retrieval and Encoding Interference in the Processing of Anaphors},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-78714},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {Two classes of account have been proposed to explain the memory processes subserving the processing of reflexive-antecedent dependencies. Structure-based accounts assume that the retrieval of the antecedent is guided by syntactic tree-configurational information without considering other kinds of information such as gender marking in the case of English reflexives. By contrast, unconstrained cue-based retrieval assumes that all available information is used for retrieving the antecedent. Similarity-based interference effects from structurally illicit distractors which match a non-structural retrieval cue have been interpreted as evidence favoring the unconstrained cue-based retrieval account since cue-based retrieval interference from structurally illicit distractors is incompatible with the structure-based account. However, it has been argued that the observed effects do not necessarily reflect interference occurring at the moment of retrieval but might equally well be accounted for by interference occurring already at the stage of encoding or maintaining the antecedent in memory, in which case they cannot be taken as evidence against the structure-based account. We present three experiments (self-paced reading and eye-tracking) on German reflexives and Swedish reflexive and pronominal possessives in which we pit the predictions of encoding interference and cue-based retrieval interference against each other. We could not find any indication that encoding interference affects the processing ease of the reflexive-antecedent dependency formation. Thus, there is no evidence that encoding interference might be the explanation for the interference effects observed in previous work. We therefore conclude that invoking encoding interference may not be a plausible way to reconcile interference effects with a structure-based account of reflexive processing.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{TracyHeideWahletal.2009,
  author    = {Tracy, Rosemarie and Heide, Judith and Wahl, Michael and Triarchi-Herrmann, Vassilia and Grimm, Angela and Wotschack, Christiane and Kulik, Sylvia and Frank, Ulrike and Klassert, Annegret and Gagarina, Natalʹja Vladimirovna and Kauschke, Christina and Eicher, Iris and Tsakmaki, Barbara and Akkaya, Zeynep and Castillo, Esmeralda and Groba, Agnes and H{\"o}hle, Barbara and Miertsch, Barbara and Hubert, Anja and Sauerland, Uli and Schr{\"o}der, Caroline and Stadie, Nicole and Wittler, Marion and Berendes, Karin and Gottal, Stephanie and Grabherr, Britta and Zaps, Jennifer and Ptok, Martin and Hanne, Sandra and Sekerina, Irina A. and Vasishth, Shravan and Burchert, Frank and De Bleser, Ria and Kleissendorf, Barbara and Jaecks, Petra and Stenneken, Prisca and Fischer, Ivette and Moedebeck, Petra},
  title     = {Spektrum Patholinguistik = Schwerpunktthema: Ein Kopf - Zwei Sprachen : Mehrsprachigkeit in Forschung und Therapie},
  number    = {2},
  editor    = {Heide, Judith and Hanne, Sandra and Brandt-Kobele, Oda-Christina and Fritzsche, Tom},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  organization    = {Verband f{\"u}r Patholinguistik e. V. (vpl)},
  isbn      = {978-3-940793-89-8},
  issn      = {1869-3822},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-3086},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-30451},
  year      = {2009},
  abstract  = {"Spektrum Patholinguistik" (Band 2) ist der Tagungsband zum 2. Herbsttreffen Patholinguistik, das der Verband f{\"u}r Patholinguistik (vpl) e.V. am 22.11.2008 an der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam veranstaltet hat. Zum Schwerpunktthema "Ein Kopf - Zwei Sprachen: Mehrsprachigkeit in Forschung und Therapie" sind die drei Hauptvortr{\"a}ge und vier Abstracts von Posterpr{\"a}sentationen ver{\"o}ffentlicht. Desweiteren enth{\"a}lt der Tagungsband freie Beitr{\"a}ge, u.a. zu Satzverarbeitung und Agrammatismus, Lesestrategien und LRS, Prosodie-Entwicklung, kindlichen Aphasien, Dysphagie-Therapie sowie zu kognitiven Defiziten bei {\"a}lteren Menschen.},
  language  = {de}
}
@misc{AktasSuccowGieletal.2015,
  author    = {Aktas, Maren and Succow, Juliane and Giel, Barbara and Dressel, Katharina and Lange, Inga and Hanne, Sandra and Burchert, Frank and Vasishth, Shravan and Schwytay, Jeannine and Breitenstein, Sarah and Fleischhauer, Elisabeth and Baumann, Jeannine and Preisinger, Irmhild and Siegm{\"u}ller, Julia and Kuschmann, Anja and Ebert, Susanne and Lowit, Anja and Rath, Elisa and Heide, Judith and Lorenz, Antje and Wartenburger, Isabell and Hippeli, Carolin and Rausch, Monika and W{\"u}rzner, Kay-Michael and Schroeder, Sascha and Czapka, Sophia and Klassert, Annegret and Reuters, Sabine and Frank, Ulrike and Frank, Katrin and Zimmermann, Heinrich and Peiffers, Sabine and Thonicke, Mady},
  title     = {Spektrum Patholinguistik = Schwerpunktthema: Besonders behandeln? : Sprachtherapie im Rahmen prim{\"a}rer St{\"o}rungsbilder},
  number    = {8},
  editor    = {Adelt, Anne and Otto, Constanze and Fritzsche, Tom and Magister, Caroline},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  organization    = {Verband f{\"u}r Patholinguistik e. V. (vpl)},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-335-0},
  issn      = {1869-3822},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-7714},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-77147},
  pages     = {vii, 247},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {Das 8. Herbsttreffen Patholinguistik mit dem Schwerpunktthema "Besonders behandeln? Sprachtherapie im Rahmen prim{\"a}rer St{\"o}rungsbilder" fand am 15.11.2014 in Potsdam statt. Das Herbsttreffen wird seit 2007 j{\"a}hrlich vom Verband f{\"u}r Patholinguistik e.V. (vpl) durchgef{\"u}hrt. Der vorliegende Tagungsband beinhaltet die vier Hauptvortr{\"a}ge zum Schwerpunktthema, die vier Kurzvortr{\"a}ge aus dem Spektrum Patholinguisitk sowie die Beitr{\"a}ge der Posterpr{\"a}sentationen zu weiteren Themen aus der sprachtherapeutischen Forschung und Praxis.},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{HanneBurchertVasishth2015,
  author    = {Hanne, Sandra and Burchert, Frank and Vasishth, Shravan},
  title     = {Satzverst{\"a}ndnisst{\"o}rungen bei Aphasie},
  series = {Spektrum Patholinguistik (Band 8) - Schwerpunktthema: Besonders behandeln? : Sprachtherapie im Rahmen prim{\"a}rer St{\"o}rungsbilder},
  journal   = {Spektrum Patholinguistik (Band 8) - Schwerpunktthema: Besonders behandeln? : Sprachtherapie im Rahmen prim{\"a}rer St{\"o}rungsbilder},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-79758},
  pages     = {71 -- 93},
  year      = {2015},
  language  = {de}
}
@misc{PatilVasishthLewis2016,
  author    = {Patil, Umesh and Vasishth, Shravan and Lewis, Richard L.},
  title     = {Retrieval interference in syntactic processing},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {493},
  issn      = {1866-8364},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-407987},
  pages     = {18},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {It has been proposed that in online sentence comprehension the dependency between a reflexive pronoun such as himself/herself and its antecedent is resolved using exclusively syntactic constraints. Under this strictly syntactic search account, Principle A of the binding theory which requires that the antecedent c-command the reflexive within the same clause that the reflexive occurs in constrains the parser's search for an antecedent. The parser thus ignores candidate antecedents that might match agreement features of the reflexive (e.g., gender) but are ineligible as potential antecedents because they are in structurally illicit positions. An alternative possibility accords no special status to structural constraints: in addition to using Principle A, the parser also uses non-structural cues such as gender to access the antecedent. According to cue -based retrieval theories of memory (e.g., Lewis and Vasishth, 2005), the use of non-structural cues should result in increased retrieval times and occasional errors when candidates partially match the cues, even if the candidates are in structurally illicit positions. In this paper, we first show how the retrieval processes that underlie the reflexive binding are naturally realized in the Lewis and Vasishth (2005) model. We present the predictions of the model under the assumption that both structural and non-structural cues are used during retrieval, and provide a critical analysis of previous empirical studies that failed to find evidence for the use of non-structural cues, suggesting that these failures may be Type II errors. We use this analysis and the results of further modeling to motivate a new empirical design that we use in an eye tracking study. The results of this study confirm the key predictions of the model concerning the use of non-structural cues, and are inconsistent with the strictly syntactic search account. These results present a challenge for theories advocating the infallibility of the human parser in the case of reflexive resolution, and provide support for the inclusion of agreement features such as gender in the set of retrieval cues.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{JaegerEngelmannVasishth2015,
  author    = {J{\"a}ger, Lena Ann and Engelmann, Felix and Vasishth, Shravan},
  title     = {Retrieval interference in reflexive processing},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-78738},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {We conducted two eye-tracking experiments investigating the processing of the Mandarin reflexive ziji in order to tease apart structurally constrained accounts from standard cue-based accounts of memory retrieval. In both experiments, we tested whether structurally inaccessible distractors that fulfill the animacy requirement of ziji influence processing times at the reflexive. In Experiment 1, we manipulated animacy of the antecedent and a structurally inaccessible distractor intervening between the antecedent and the reflexive. In conditions where the accessible antecedent mismatched the animacy cue, we found inhibitory interference whereas in antecedent-match conditions, no effect of the distractor was observed. In Experiment 2, we tested only antecedent-match configurations and manipulated locality of the reflexive-antecedent binding (Mandarin allows non-local binding). Participants were asked to hold three distractors (animate vs. inanimate nouns) in memory while reading the target sentence. We found slower reading times when animate distractors were held in memory (inhibitory interference). Moreover, we replicated the locality effect reported in previous studies. These results are incompatible with structure-based accounts. However, the cue-based ACT-R model of Lewis and Vasishth (2005) cannot explain the observed pattern either. We therefore extend the original ACT-R model and show how this model not only explains the data presented in this article, but is also able to account for previously unexplained patterns in the literature on reflexive processing.},
  language  = {en}
}