@article{LogacevVasishth2016,
  author    = {Logacev, Pavel and Vasishth, Shravan},
  title     = {A Multiple-Channel Model of Task-Dependent Ambiguity Resolution in Sentence Comprehension},
  series = {Cognitive science : a multidisciplinary journal of anthropology, artificial intelligence, education, linguistics, neuroscience, philosophy, psychology ; journal of the Cognitive Science Society},
  volume    = {40},
  journal   = {Cognitive science : a multidisciplinary journal of anthropology, artificial intelligence, education, linguistics, neuroscience, philosophy, psychology ; journal of the Cognitive Science Society},
  publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {0364-0213},
  doi       = {10.1111/cogs.12228},
  pages     = {266 -- 298},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Traxler, Pickering, and Clifton (1998) found that ambiguous sentences are read faster than their unambiguous counterparts. This so-called ambiguity advantage has presented a major challenge to classical theories of human sentence comprehension (parsing) because its most prominent explanation, in the form of the unrestricted race model (URM), assumes that parsing is non-deterministic. Recently, Swets, Desmet, Clifton, and Ferreira (2008) have challenged the URM. They argue that readers strategically underspecify the representation of ambiguous sentences to save time, unless disambiguation is required by task demands. When disambiguation is required, however, readers assign sentences full structure—and Swets et al. provide experimental evidence to this end. On the basis of their findings, they argue against the URM and in favor of a model of task-dependent sentence comprehension. We show through simulations that the Swets et al. data do not constitute evidence for task-dependent parsing because they can be explained by the URM. However, we provide decisive evidence from a German self-paced reading study consistent with Swets et al.'s general claim about task-dependent parsing. Specifically, we show that under certain conditions, ambiguous sentences can be read more slowly than their unambiguous counterparts, suggesting that the parser may create several parses, when required. Finally, we present the first quantitative model of task-driven disambiguation that subsumes the URM, and we show that it can explain both Swets et al.'s results and our findings.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{NicenboimVasishth2018,
  author    = {Nicenboim, Bruno and Vasishth, Shravan},
  title     = {Models of retrieval in sentence comprehension},
  series = {Journal of memory and language},
  volume    = {99},
  journal   = {Journal of memory and language},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {San Diego},
  issn      = {0749-596X},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.jml.2017.08.004},
  pages     = {1 -- 34},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Research on similarity-based interference has provided extensive evidence that the formation of dependencies between non-adjacent words relies on a cue-based retrieval mechanism. There are two different models that can account for one of the main predictions of interference, i.e., a slowdown at a retrieval site, when several items share a feature associated with a retrieval cue: Lewis and Vasishth's (2005) activation-based model and McElree's (2000) direct-access model. Even though these two models have been used almost interchangeably, they are based on different assumptions and predict differences in the relationship between reading times and response accuracy. The activation-based model follows the assumptions of the ACT-R framework, and its retrieval process behaves as a lognormal race between accumulators of evidence with a single variance. Under this model, accuracy of the retrieval is determined by the winner of the race and retrieval time by its rate of accumulation. In contrast, the direct-access model assumes a model of memory where only the probability of retrieval can be affected, while the retrieval time is drawn from the same distribution; in this model, differences in latencies are a by-product of the possibility of backtracking and repairing incorrect retrievals. We implemented both models in a Bayesian hierarchical framework in order to evaluate them and compare them. The data show that correct retrievals take longer than incorrect ones, and this pattern is better fit under the direct-access model than under the activation-based model. This finding does not rule out the possibility that retrieval may be behaving as a race model with assumptions that follow less closely the ones from the ACT-R framework. By introducing a modification of the activation model, i.e., by assuming that the accumulation of evidence for retrieval of incorrect items is not only slower but noisier (i.e., different variances for the correct and incorrect items), the model can provide a fit as good as the one of the direct-access model. This first ever computational evaluation of alternative accounts of retrieval processes in sentence processing opens the way for a broader investigation of theories of dependency completion.},
  language  = {en}
}