@article{JaegerMertzenVanDykeetal.2020, author = {J{\"a}ger, Lena Ann and Mertzen, Daniela and Van Dyke, Julie A. and Vasishth, Shravan}, title = {Interference patterns in subject-verb agreement and reflexives revisited}, series = {Journal of memory and language}, volume = {111}, journal = {Journal of memory and language}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {San Diego}, issn = {0749-596X}, doi = {10.1016/j.jml.2019.104063}, pages = {21}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Cue-based retrieval theories in sentence processing predict two classes of interference effect: (i) Inhibitory interference is predicted when multiple items match a retrieval cue: cue-overloading leads to an overall slowdown in reading time; and (ii) Facilitatory interference arises when a retrieval target as well as a distractor only partially match the retrieval cues; this partial matching leads to an overall speedup in retrieval time. Inhibitory interference effects are widely observed, but facilitatory interference apparently has an exception: reflexives have been claimed to show no facilitatory interference effects. Because the claim is based on underpowered studies, we conducted a large-sample experiment that investigated both facilitatory and inhibitory interference. In contrast to previous studies, we find facilitatory interference effects in reflexives. We also present a quantitative evaluation of the cue-based retrieval model of Engelmann, Jager, and Vasishth (2019).}, language = {en} } @article{WochatzTilgnerMuelleretal.2019, author = {Wochatz, Monique and Tilgner, Nina and Mueller, Steffen and Rabe, Sophie and Eichler, Sarah and John, Michael and V{\"o}ller, Heinz and Mayer, Frank}, title = {Reliability and validity of the Kinect V2 for the assessment of lower extremity rehabilitation exercises}, series = {Gait \& posture}, volume = {70}, journal = {Gait \& posture}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Clare}, issn = {0966-6362}, doi = {10.1016/j.gaitpost.2019.03.020}, pages = {330 -- 335}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Research question: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the test-retest reliability of lower extremity kinematics during squat, hip abduction and lunge exercises captured by the Kinect and to evaluate the agreement to a reference 3D camera-based motion system. Methods: Twenty-one healthy individuals performed five repetitions of each lower limb exercise on two different days. Movements were simultaneously assessed by the Kinect and the reference 3D motion system. Joint angles and positions of the lower limb were calculated for sagittal and frontal plane. For the inter-session reliability and the agreement between the two systems standard error of measurement (SEM), bias with limits of agreement (LoA) and Pearson Correlation Coefficient (r) were calculated. Results: Parameters indicated varying reliability for the assessed joint angles and positions and decreasing reliability with increasing task complexity. Across all exercises, measurement deviations were shown especially for small movement amplitudes. Variability was acceptable for joint angles and positions during the squat, partially acceptable during the hip abduction and predominately inacceptable during the lunge. The agreement between systems was characterized by systematic errors. Overestimations by the Kinect were apparent for hip flexion during the squat and hip abduction/adduction during the hip abduction exercise as well as for the knee positions during the lunge. Knee and hip flexion during hip abduction and lunge were underestimated by the Kinect. Significance: The Kinect system can reliably assess lower limb joint angles and positions during simple exercises. The validity of the system is however restricted. An application in the field of early orthopedic rehabilitation without further development of post-processing techniques seems so far limited.}, 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} } @article{Zeijlstra2009, author = {Zeijlstra, Hedde}, title = {Hard and soft conditions on the faculty of language}, series = {Linguistics in Potsdam}, journal = {Linguistics in Potsdam}, number = {28}, issn = {1616-7392}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-32221}, pages = {9 -- 38}, year = {2009}, abstract = {In this paper I argue that both parametric variation and the alleged differences between languages in terms of their internal complexity straightforwardly follow from the Strongest Minimalist Thesis that takes the Faculty of Language (FL) to be an optimal solution to conditions that neighboring mental modules impose on it. In this paper I argue that hard conditions like legibility at the linguistic interfaces invoke simplicity metrices that, given that they stem from different mental modules, are not harmonious. I argue that widely attested expression strategies, such as agreement or movement, are a direct result of conflicting simplicity metrices, and that UG, perceived as a toolbox that shapes natural language, can be taken to consist of a limited number of markings strategies, all resulting from conflicting simplicity metrices. As such, the contents of UG follow from simplicity requirements, and therefore no longer necessitate linguistic principles, valued or unvalued, to be innately present. Finally, I show that the SMT does not require that languages themselves have to be optimal in connecting sound to meaning.}, language = {en} }