@misc{KentnerVasishth2015,
  author    = {Kentner, Gerrit and Vasishth, Shravan},
  title     = {Prosodic focus marking in silent reading},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {467},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-407976},
  pages     = {19},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {Understanding a sentence and integrating it into the discourse depends upon the identification of its focus, which, in spoken German, is marked by accentuation. In the case of written language, which lacks explicit cues to accent, readers have to draw on other kinds of information to determine the focus. We study the joint or interactive effects of two kinds of information that have no direct representation in print but have each been shown to be influential in the reader's text comprehension: (i) the (low-level) rhythmic-prosodic structure that is based on the distribution of lexically stressed syllables, and (ii) the (high-level) discourse context that is grounded in the memory of previous linguistic content. Systematically manipulating these factors, we examine the way readers resolve a syntactic ambiguity involving the scopally ambiguous focus operator auch (engl. "too") in both oral (Experiment 1) and silent reading (Experiment 2). The results of both experiments attest that discourse context and local linguistic rhythm conspire to guide the syntactic and, concomitantly, the focus-structural analysis of ambiguous sentences. We argue that reading comprehension requires the (implicit) assignment of accents according to the focus structure and that, by establishing a prominence profile, the implicit prosodic rhythm directly affects accent assignment.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HanneBurchertVasishth2015,
  author    = {Hanne, Sandra and Burchert, Frank and Vasishth, Shravan},
  title     = {Satzverst{\"a}ndnisst{\"o}rungen bei Aphasie},
  series = {Spektrum Patholinguistik (Band 8) - Schwerpunktthema: Besonders behandeln? : Sprachtherapie im Rahmen prim{\"a}rer St{\"o}rungsbilder},
  journal   = {Spektrum Patholinguistik (Band 8) - Schwerpunktthema: Besonders behandeln? : Sprachtherapie im Rahmen prim{\"a}rer St{\"o}rungsbilder},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-79758},
  pages     = {71 -- 93},
  year      = {2015},
  language  = {de}
}
@misc{JaegerEngelmannVasishth2015,
  author    = {J{\"a}ger, Lena Ann and Engelmann, Felix and Vasishth, Shravan},
  title     = {Retrieval interference in reflexive processing},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-78738},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {We conducted two eye-tracking experiments investigating the processing of the Mandarin reflexive ziji in order to tease apart structurally constrained accounts from standard cue-based accounts of memory retrieval. In both experiments, we tested whether structurally inaccessible distractors that fulfill the animacy requirement of ziji influence processing times at the reflexive. In Experiment 1, we manipulated animacy of the antecedent and a structurally inaccessible distractor intervening between the antecedent and the reflexive. In conditions where the accessible antecedent mismatched the animacy cue, we found inhibitory interference whereas in antecedent-match conditions, no effect of the distractor was observed. In Experiment 2, we tested only antecedent-match configurations and manipulated locality of the reflexive-antecedent binding (Mandarin allows non-local binding). Participants were asked to hold three distractors (animate vs. inanimate nouns) in memory while reading the target sentence. We found slower reading times when animate distractors were held in memory (inhibitory interference). Moreover, we replicated the locality effect reported in previous studies. These results are incompatible with structure-based accounts. However, the cue-based ACT-R model of Lewis and Vasishth (2005) cannot explain the observed pattern either. We therefore extend the original ACT-R model and show how this model not only explains the data presented in this article, but is also able to account for previously unexplained patterns in the literature on reflexive processing.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{JaegerBenzRoeseretal.2015,
  author    = {J{\"a}ger, Lena Ann and Benz, Lena and Roeser, Jens and Dillon, Brian W. and Vasishth, Shravan},
  title     = {Teasing apart Retrieval and Encoding Interference in the Processing of Anaphors},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-78714},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {Two classes of account have been proposed to explain the memory processes subserving the processing of reflexive-antecedent dependencies. Structure-based accounts assume that the retrieval of the antecedent is guided by syntactic tree-configurational information without considering other kinds of information such as gender marking in the case of English reflexives. By contrast, unconstrained cue-based retrieval assumes that all available information is used for retrieving the antecedent. Similarity-based interference effects from structurally illicit distractors which match a non-structural retrieval cue have been interpreted as evidence favoring the unconstrained cue-based retrieval account since cue-based retrieval interference from structurally illicit distractors is incompatible with the structure-based account. However, it has been argued that the observed effects do not necessarily reflect interference occurring at the moment of retrieval but might equally well be accounted for by interference occurring already at the stage of encoding or maintaining the antecedent in memory, in which case they cannot be taken as evidence against the structure-based account. We present three experiments (self-paced reading and eye-tracking) on German reflexives and Swedish reflexive and pronominal possessives in which we pit the predictions of encoding interference and cue-based retrieval interference against each other. We could not find any indication that encoding interference affects the processing ease of the reflexive-antecedent dependency formation. Thus, there is no evidence that encoding interference might be the explanation for the interference effects observed in previous work. We therefore conclude that invoking encoding interference may not be a plausible way to reconcile interference effects with a structure-based account of reflexive processing.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{AktasSuccowGieletal.2015,
  author    = {Aktas, Maren and Succow, Juliane and Giel, Barbara and Dressel, Katharina and Lange, Inga and Hanne, Sandra and Burchert, Frank and Vasishth, Shravan and Schwytay, Jeannine and Breitenstein, Sarah and Fleischhauer, Elisabeth and Baumann, Jeannine and Preisinger, Irmhild and Siegm{\"u}ller, Julia and Kuschmann, Anja and Ebert, Susanne and Lowit, Anja and Rath, Elisa and Heide, Judith and Lorenz, Antje and Wartenburger, Isabell and Hippeli, Carolin and Rausch, Monika and W{\"u}rzner, Kay-Michael and Schroeder, Sascha and Czapka, Sophia and Klassert, Annegret and Reuters, Sabine and Frank, Ulrike and Frank, Katrin and Zimmermann, Heinrich and Peiffers, Sabine and Thonicke, Mady},
  title     = {Spektrum Patholinguistik = Schwerpunktthema: Besonders behandeln? : Sprachtherapie im Rahmen prim{\"a}rer St{\"o}rungsbilder},
  number    = {8},
  editor    = {Adelt, Anne and Otto, Constanze and Fritzsche, Tom and Magister, Caroline},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  organization    = {Verband f{\"u}r Patholinguistik e. V. (vpl)},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-335-0},
  issn      = {1869-3822},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-7714},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-77147},
  pages     = {vii, 247},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {Das 8. Herbsttreffen Patholinguistik mit dem Schwerpunktthema "Besonders behandeln? Sprachtherapie im Rahmen prim{\"a}rer St{\"o}rungsbilder" fand am 15.11.2014 in Potsdam statt. Das Herbsttreffen wird seit 2007 j{\"a}hrlich vom Verband f{\"u}r Patholinguistik e.V. (vpl) durchgef{\"u}hrt. Der vorliegende Tagungsband beinhaltet die vier Hauptvortr{\"a}ge zum Schwerpunktthema, die vier Kurzvortr{\"a}ge aus dem Spektrum Patholinguisitk sowie die Beitr{\"a}ge der Posterpr{\"a}sentationen zu weiteren Themen aus der sprachtherapeutischen Forschung und Praxis.},
  language  = {de}
}
@misc{NicenboimVasishthGatteietal.2015,
  author    = {Nicenboim, Bruno and Vasishth, Shravan and Gattei, Carolina and Sigman, Mariano and Kliegl, Reinhold},
  title     = {Working memory differences in long-distance dependency resolution},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-75694},
  pages     = {16},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {There is a wealth of evidence showing that increasing the distance between an argument and its head leads to more processing effort, namely, locality effects; these are usually associated with constraints in working memory (DLT: Gibson, 2000; activation-based model: Lewis and Vasishth, 2005). In SOV languages, however, the opposite effect has been found: antilocality (see discussion in Levy et al., 2013). Antilocality effects can be explained by the expectation-based approach as proposed by Levy (2008) or by the activation-based model of sentence processing as proposed by Lewis and Vasishth (2005). We report an eye-tracking and a self-paced reading study with sentences in Spanish together with measures of individual differences to examine the distinction between expectation- and memory-based accounts, and within memory-based accounts the further distinction between DLT and the activation-based model. The experiments show that (i) antilocality effects as predicted by the expectation account appear only for high-capacity readers; (ii) increasing dependency length by interposing material that modifies the head of the dependency (the verb) produces stronger facilitation than increasing dependency length with material that does not modify the head; this is in agreement with the activation-based model but not with the expectation account; and (iii) a possible outcome of memory load on low-capacity readers is the increase in regressive saccades (locality effects as predicted by memory-based accounts) or, surprisingly, a speedup in the self-paced reading task; the latter consistent with good-enough parsing (Ferreira et al., 2002). In sum, the study suggests that individual differences in working memory capacity play a role in dependency resolution, and that some of the aspects of dependency resolution can be best explained with the activation-based model together with a prediction component.},
  language  = {en}
}