@article{vonderMalsburgAngele2017,
  author    = {von der Malsburg, Titus Raban and Angele, Bernhard},
  title     = {False positives and other statistical errors in standard analyses of eye movements in reading},
  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.2016.10.003},
  pages     = {119 -- 133},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {In research on eye movements in reading, it is common to analyze a number of canonical dependent measures to study how the effects of a manipulation unfold over time. Although this gives rise to the well-known multiple comparisons problem, i.e. an inflated probability that the null hypothesis is incorrectly rejected (Type I error), it is accepted standard practice not to apply any correction procedures. Instead, there appears to be a widespread belief that corrections are not necessary because the increase in false positives is too small to matter. To our knowledge, no formal argument has ever been presented to justify this assumption. Here, we report a computational investigation of this issue using Monte Carlo simulations. Our results show that, contrary to conventional wisdom, false positives are increased to unacceptable levels when no corrections are applied. Our simulations also show that counter-measures like the Bonferroni correction keep false positives in check while reducing statistical power only moderately. Hence, there is little reason why such corrections should not be made a standard requirement. Further, we discuss three statistical illusions that can arise when statistical power is low, and we show how power can be improved to prevent these illusions. In sum, our work renders a detailed picture of the various types of statistical errors than can occur in studies of reading behavior and we provide concrete guidance about how these errors can be avoided. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{JessenFestmanBoxelletal.2017,
  author    = {Jessen, Anna and Festman, Julia and Boxell, Oliver and Felser, Claudia},
  title     = {Native and non-native speakers' brain responses to filled indirect Object Gaps},
  series = {Journal of Psycholinguistic Research},
  volume    = {46},
  journal   = {Journal of Psycholinguistic Research},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {New York},
  issn      = {0090-6905},
  doi       = {10.1007/s10936-017-9496-9},
  pages     = {1319 -- 1338},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {We examined native and non-native English speakers' processing of indirect object wh-dependencies using a filled-gap paradigm while recording event-related potentials (ERPs). The non-native group was comprised of native German-speaking, proficient non-native speakers of English. Both participant groups showed evidence of linking fronted indirect objects to the subcategorizing verb when this was encountered, reflected in an N400 component. Evidence for continued filler activation beyond the verb was seen only in the non-native group, in the shape of a prolonged left-anterior negativity. Both participant groups showed sensitivity to filled indirect object gaps reflected in a P600 response, which was more pronounced and more globally distributed in our non-native group. Taken together, our results indicate that resolving indirect object dependencies is a two-step process in both native and non-native sentence comprehension, with greater processing cost incurred in non-native compared to native comprehension.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{AdeltStadieLassottaetal.2017,
  author    = {Adelt, Anne and Stadie, Nicole and Lassotta, Romy and Adani, Flavia and Burchert, Frank},
  title     = {Feature dissimilarities in the processing of German relative clauses in aphasia},
  series = {Journal of neurolinguistics : an international journal for the study of brain function in language behavior and experience},
  volume    = {44},
  journal   = {Journal of neurolinguistics : an international journal for the study of brain function in language behavior and experience},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {0911-6044},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.jneuroling.2017.01.002},
  pages     = {17 -- 37},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {The cross-linguistic finding of greater demands in processing object relatives as compared to subject relatives in individuals with aphasia and non-brain-damaged speakers has been explained within the Relativized Minimality approach. Based on this account, the asymmetry is attributed to an element intervening between the moved element and its extraction site in object relatives, but not in subject relatives. Moreover, it has been proposed that processing of object relatives is facilitated if the intervening and the moved elements differ in their internal feature structure. The present study investigates these predictions in German-speaking individuals with aphasia and a group of control participants by combining the visual world eye-tracking methodology with an auditory referent identification task. Our results provide support for the Relativized Minimality approach. Particularly, the degree of featural distinctness was shown to modulate the occurrence of the effects in aphasia. We claim that, due to reduced processing capacities, individuals with aphasia need a higher degree of featural dissimilarity to distinguish the moved from the intervening element in object relatives to overcome their syntactic deficit. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.},
  language  = {en}
}