@misc{VasishthNicenboimEngelmannetal.2019,
  author    = {Vasishth, Shravan and Nicenboim, Bruno and Engelmann, Felix and Burchert, Frank},
  title     = {Computational Models of Retrieval Processes in Sentence Processing},
  series = {Trends in Cognitive Sciences},
  volume    = {23},
  journal   = {Trends in Cognitive Sciences},
  number    = {11},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {1364-6613},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.tics.2019.09.003},
  pages     = {968 -- 982},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Sentence comprehension requires that the comprehender work out who did what to whom. This process has been characterized as retrieval from memory. This review summarizes the quantitative predictions and empirical coverage of the two existing computational models of retrieval and shows how the predictive performance of these two competing models can be tested against a benchmark data-set. We also show how computational modeling can help us better understand sources of variability in both unimpaired and impaired sentence comprehension.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{JaegerEngelmannVasishth2017,
  author    = {Jaeger, Lena A. and Engelmann, Felix and Vasishth, Shravan},
  title     = {Similarity-based interference in sentence comprehension: Literature review and Bayesian meta-analysis},
  series = {Journal of memory and language},
  volume    = {94},
  journal   = {Journal of memory and language},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {San Diego},
  issn      = {0749-596X},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.004},
  pages     = {316 -- 339},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {We report a comprehensive review of the published reading studies on retrieval interference in reflexive-/reciprocal-antecedent and subject-verb dependencies. We also provide a quantitative random-effects meta-analysis of eyetracking and self-paced reading studies. We show that the empirical evidence is only partly consistent with cue-based retrieval as implemented in the ACT-R-based model of sentence processing by Lewis and Vasishth (2005) (LV05) and that there are important differences between the reviewed dependency types. In non-agreement subject-verb dependencies, there is evidence for inhibitory interference in configurations where the correct dependent fully matches the retrieval cues. This is consistent with the LV05 cue-based retrieval account. By contrast, in subject-verb agreement as well as in reflexive-/reciprocal-antecedent dependencies, no evidence for inhibitory interference is found in configurations with a fully cue-matching subject/antecedent. In configurations with only a partially cue-matching subject or antecedent, the meta-analysis reveals facilitatory interference in subject-verb agreement and inhibitory interference in reflexives/reciprocals. The former is consistent with the LV05 account, but the latter is not. Moreover, the meta-analysis reveals that (i) interference type (proactive versus retroactive) leads to different effects in the reviewed dependency types and (ii) the prominence of the distractor strongly influences the interference effect. In sum, the meta-analysis suggests that the LV05 needs important modifications to account for the unexplained interference patterns and the differences between the dependency types. More generally, the meta-analysis provides a quantitative empirical basis for comparing the predictions of competing accounts of retrieval processes in sentence comprehension. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{VasishthvonderMalsburgEngelmann2013,
  author    = {Vasishth, Shravan and von der Malsburg, Titus Raban and Engelmann, Felix},
  title     = {What eye movements can tell us about sentence comprehension},
  series = {Wiley interdisciplinary reviews : Cognitive Science},
  volume    = {4},
  journal   = {Wiley interdisciplinary reviews : Cognitive Science},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {San Fransisco},
  issn      = {1939-5078},
  doi       = {10.1002/wcs.1209},
  pages     = {125 -- 134},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {Eye movement data have proven to be very useful for investigating human sentence processing. Eyetracking research has addressed a wide range of questions, such as recovery mechanisms following garden-pathing, the timing of processes driving comprehension, the role of anticipation and expectation in parsing, the role of semantic, pragmatic, and prosodic information, and so on. However, there are some limitations regarding the inferences that can be made on the basis of eye movements. One relates to the nontrivial interaction between parsing and the eye movement control system which complicates the interpretation of eye movement data. Detailed computational models that integrate parsing with eye movement control theories have the potential to unpack the complexity of eye movement data and can therefore aid in the interpretation of eye movements. Another limitation is the difficulty of capturing spatiotemporal patterns in eye movements using the traditional word-based eyetracking measures. Recent research has demonstrated the relevance of these patterns and has shown how they can be analyzed. In this review, we focus on reading, and present examples demonstrating how eye movement data reveal what events unfold when the parser runs into difficulty, and how the parsing system interacts with eye movement control. WIREs Cogn Sci 2013, 4:125134. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1209 For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.},
  language  = {en}
}