@phdthesis{LissonHernandez2022,
  author    = {Liss{\´o}n Hern{\´a}ndez, Paula J.},
  title     = {Computational models of sentence comprehension in aphasia},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-55548},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-555487},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {vi, 159},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {It is well-known that individuals with aphasia (IWA) have difficulties understanding sentences that involve non-adjacent dependencies, such as object relative clauses or passives (Caplan, Baker, \& Dehaut, 1985; Caramazza \& Zurif, 1976). A large body of research supports the view that IWA's grammatical system is intact, and that comprehension difficulties in aphasia are caused by a processing deficit, such as a delay in lexical access and/or in syntactic structure building (e.g., Burkhardt, Pi{\~n}ango, \& Wong, 2003; Caplan, Michaud, \& Hufford, 2015; Caplan, Waters, DeDe, Michaud, \& Reddy, 2007; Ferrill, Love, Walenski, \& Shapiro, 2012; Hanne, Burchert, De Bleser, \& Vasishth, 2015; Love, Swinney, Walenski, \& Zurif, 2008). The main goal of this dissertation is to computationally investigate the processing sources of comprehension impairments in sentence processing in aphasia. In this work, prominent theories of processing deficits coming from the aphasia literature are implemented within two cognitive models of sentence processing -the activation-based model (Lewis \& Vasishth, 2005) and the direct-access model (McEl- ree, 2000)-. These models are two different expressions of the cue-based retrieval theory (Lewis, Vasishth, \& Van Dyke, 2006), which posits that sentence processing is the result of a series of iterative retrievals from memory. These two models have been widely used to account for sentence processing in unimpaired populations in multiple languages and linguistic constructions, sometimes interchangeably (Parker, Shvarts- man, \& Van Dyke, 2017). However, Nicenboim and Vasishth (2018) showed that when both models are implemented in the same framework and fitted to the same data, the models yield different results, because the models assume different data- generating processes. Specifically, the models hold different assumptions regarding the retrieval latencies. The second goal of this dissertation is to compare these two models of cue-based retrieval, using data from individuals with aphasia and control participants. We seek to answer the following question: Which retrieval mechanism is more likely to mediate sentence comprehension? We model 4 subsets of existing data: Relative clauses in English and German; and control structures and pronoun resolution in German. The online data come from either self-paced listening experiments, or visual-world eye-tracking experiments. The offline data come from a complementary sentence-picture matching task performed at the end of the trial in both types of experiments. The two competing models of retrieval are implemented in the Bayesian framework, following Nicenboim and Vasishth (2018). In addition, we present a modified version of the direct-acess model that - we argue - is more suitable for individuals with aphasia. This dissertation presents a systematic approach to implement and test verbally- stated theories of comprehension deficits in aphasia within cognitive models of sen- tence processing. The conclusions drawn from this work are that (a) the original direct-access model (as implemented here) cannot account for the full pattern of data from individuals with aphasia because it cannot account for slow misinterpretations; and (b) an activation-based model of retrieval can account for sentence comprehension deficits in individuals with aphasia by assuming a delay in syntactic structure building, and noise in the processing system. The overall pattern of results support an activation-based mechanism of memory retrieval, in which a combination of processing deficits, namely slow syntax and intermittent deficiencies, cause comprehension difficulties in individuals with aphasia.},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Mertzen2022,
  author    = {Mertzen, Daniela},
  title     = {A cross-linguistic investigation of similarity-based interference in sentence comprehension},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-55668},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-556685},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {xvii, 129},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {The aim of this dissertation was to conduct a larger-scale cross-linguistic empirical investigation of similarity-based interference effects in sentence comprehension. Interference studies can offer valuable insights into the mechanisms that are involved in long-distance dependency completion. Many studies have investigated similarity-based interference effects, showing that syntactic and semantic information are employed during long-distance dependency formation (e.g., Arnett \& Wagers, 2017; Cunnings \& Sturt, 2018; Van Dyke, 2007, Van Dyke \& Lewis, 2003; Van Dyke \& McElree, 2011). Nevertheless, there are some important open questions in the interference literature that are critical to our understanding of the constraints involved in dependency resolution. The first research question concerns the relative timing of syntactic and semantic interference in online sentence comprehension. Only few interference studies have investigated this question, and, to date, there is not enough data to draw conclusions with regard to their time course (Van Dyke, 2007; Van Dyke \& McElree, 2011). Our first cross-linguistic study explores the relative timing of syntactic and semantic interference in two eye-tracking reading experiments that implement the study design used in Van Dyke (2007). The first experiment tests English sentences. The second, larger-sample experiment investigates the two interference types in German. Overall, the data suggest that syntactic and semantic interference can arise simultaneously during retrieval. The second research question concerns a special case of semantic interference: We investigate whether cue-based retrieval interference can be caused by semantically similar items which are not embedded in a syntactic structure. This second interference study builds on a landmark study by Van Dyke \& McElree (2006). The study design used in their study is unique in that it is able to pin down the source of interference as a consequence of cue overload during retrieval, when semantic retrieval cues do not uniquely match the retrieval target. Unlike most other interference studies, this design is able to rule out encoding interference as an alternative explanation. Encoding accounts postulate that it is not cue overload at the retrieval site but the erroneous encoding of similar linguistic items in memory that leads to interference (Lewandowsky et al., 2008; Oberauer \& Kliegl, 2006). While Van Dyke \& McElree (2006) reported cue-based retrieval interference from sentence-external distractors, the evidence for this effect was weak. A subsequent study did not show interference of this type (Van Dyke et al., 2014). Given these inconclusive findings, further research is necessary to investigate semantic cue-based retrieval interference. The second study in this dissertation provides a larger-scale cross-linguistic investigation of cue-based retrieval interference from sentence-external items. Three larger-sample eye-tracking studies in English, German, and Russian tested cue-based interference in the online processing of filler-gap dependencies. This study further extends the previous research by investigating interference in each language under varying task demands (Logačev \& Vasishth, 2016; Swets et al., 2008). Overall, we see some very modest support for proactive cue-based retrieval interference in English. Unexpectedly, this was observed only under a low task demand. In German and Russian, there is some evidence against the interference effect. It is possible that interference is attenuated in languages with richer case marking. In sum, the cross-linguistic experiments on the time course of syntactic and semantic interference from sentence-internal distractors support existing evidence of syntactic and semantic interference during sentence comprehension. Our data further show that both types of interference effects can arise simultaneously. Our cross-linguistic experiments investigating semantic cue-based retrieval interference from sentence-external distractors suggest that this type of interference may arise only in specific linguistic contexts.},
  language  = {en}
}