@article{SchoknechtRoehmSchlesewskyetal.2022,
  author    = {Schoknecht, Pia and Roehm, Dietmar and Schlesewsky, Matthias and Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina},
  title     = {The interaction of predictive processing and similarity-based retrieval interference},
  series = {Language, cognition and neuroscience},
  volume    = {37},
  journal   = {Language, cognition and neuroscience},
  number    = {7},
  publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group},
  address   = {Abingdon},
  issn      = {2327-3798},
  doi       = {10.1080/23273798.2022.2026421},
  pages     = {883 -- 901},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Language processing requires memory retrieval to integrate current input with previous context and making predictions about upcoming input. We propose that prediction and retrieval are two sides of the same coin, i.e. functionally the same, as they both activate memory representations. Under this assumption, memory retrieval and prediction should interact: Retrieval interference can only occur at a word that triggers retrieval and a fully predicted word would not do that. The present study investigated the proposed interaction with event-related potentials (ERPs) during the processing of sentence pairs in German. Predictability was measured via cloze probability. Memory retrieval was manipulated via the position of a distractor inducing proactive or retroactive similarity-based interference. Linear mixed model analyses provided evidence for the hypothesised interaction in a broadly distributed negativity, which we discuss in relation to the interference ERP literature. Our finding supports the proposal that memory retrieval and prediction are functionally the same.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{SchlesewskyFanselowKliegletal.2000,
  author    = {Schlesewsky, Matthias and Fanselow, Gisbert and Kliegl, Reinhold and Krems, J.},
  title     = {The subject preference in the processing of locally ambiguous Wh-questions in german},
  isbn      = {0-7923-6104- 0},
  year      = {2000},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Schlesewsky1996,
  author    = {Schlesewsky, Matthias},
  title     = {Kasusph{\"a}nomene in der Sprachverarbeitung : eine Studie zur Verarbeitung von kasusmarkierten und Relativsatzkonstruktionen im Deutschen},
  pages     = {III, 173 S. : Ill.},
  year      = {1996},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{SaddySchlesewskyBeimGraben1999,
  author    = {Saddy, Douglas and Schlesewsky, Matthias and Beim Graben, Peter},
  title     = {Cylinder Entropies and Case resolution},
  year      = {1999},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{SaddyBeimGrabenSchlesewsky1999,
  author    = {Saddy, Douglas and Beim Graben, Peter and Schlesewsky, Matthias},
  title     = {Cortical Dynamics of Language Processes},
  year      = {1999},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{SaddyBeimGrabenSchlesewsky1999,
  author    = {Saddy, Douglas and Beim Graben, Peter and Schlesewsky, Matthias},
  title     = {Measuring entropy during language processing},
  year      = {1999},
  language  = {en}
}
@book{OlsenStiebelsBierwischetal.2019,
  author    = {Olsen, Susan and Stiebels, Barbara and Bierwisch, Manfred and Zimmermann, Ilse and Cavar, Damir and Georgi, Doreen and Bacskai-Atkari, Julia and Alexiadou, Artemis and Błaszczak, Joanna and M{\"u}ller, Gereon and Šim{\´i}k, Radek and Meinunger, Andr{\´e} and Thiersch, Craig and Arnhold, Anja and F{\´e}ry, Caroline and Bayer, Josef and Titov, Elena and Fominyam, Henry and Tran, Thuan and Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina D. and Schlesewsky, Matthias and Zimmermann, Malte and H{\"a}ussler, Jana and Mucha, Anne and Schmidt, Andreas and Weskott, Thomas and Wierzba, Marta and Stede, Manfred and Skopeteas, Stavros and Gafos, Adamantios I. and Haider, Hubert and Wunderlich, Dieter and Staudacher, Peter and Rauh, Gisa},
  title     = {Of Trees and Birds},
  editor    = {Brown, Jessica M. M. and Schmidt, Andreas and Wierzba, Marta},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-457-9},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-42654},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-426542},
  publisher      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {xvi, 435},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Gisbert Fanselow's work has been invaluable and inspiring to many ­researchers working on syntax, morphology, and information ­structure, both from a ­theoretical and from an experimental perspective. This ­volume comprises a collection of articles dedicated to Gisbert on the occasion of his 60th birthday, covering a range of topics from these areas and beyond. The contributions have in ­common that in a broad sense they have to do with language structures (and thus trees), and that in a more specific sense they have to do with birds. They thus cover two of Gisbert's major interests in- and outside of the linguistic world (and ­perhaps even at the interface).},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{FrischSchlesewskyWegner2005,
  author    = {Frisch, Stefan and Schlesewsky, Matthias and Wegner, H.},
  title     = {The interaction of morphological case and word order constraints : Cross-linguistic ERP evidence from German, Russian and Finnish},
  year      = {2005},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{FrischSchlesewsky2005,
  author    = {Frisch, Stefan and Schlesewsky, Matthias},
  title     = {The resolution of case conflicts from a neurophysiological perspective},
  year      = {2005},
  abstract  = {We present two ERP experiments examining the resolution of language processing conflicts involving the multidimensional linguistic feature case, which determines processing in both syntactic and interpretive respects. Ungrammatical German structures with two identically case-marked arguments (double subject or double object constructions) were tested. In earlier studies, double subject constructions have been shown to elicit a biphasic pattern consisting of an N400 effect (a marker of thematic integration problems) followed by a P600 effect (a marker of syntactic ill-formedness). Here, we compare double nominative (subject case) constructions with double datives (indirect object case; Experiment 1) and double accusatives (direct object case; Experiment 2). All types of double case ungrammaticalities elicited a biphasic N400-P600 response. However, double datives differed from double nominatives in that they elicited a larger P600, suggesting that the ill-formedness is more salient in structures with two dative arguments. Double accusatives, by contrast, elicited a stronger N400 in comparison to double nominatives, suggesting that they induce more severe semantic-thematic integration problems. The results demonstrate that the human language comprehension system is sensitive to fine grained linguistic distinctions between different cases and utilizes these in its attempts to solve processing conflicts. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{FrischBeimGrabenSchlesewsky2004,
  author    = {Frisch, Stefan and Beim Graben, Peter and Schlesewsky, Matthias},
  title     = {Parallelizing grammatical functions : P600 and P345 reflect different cost of reanalysis},
  issn      = {0218-1274},
  year      = {2004},
  abstract  = {It is well-known from psycholinguistic literature that the human language processing system exhibits preferences when sentence constituents are ambiguous with respect to their grammatical function. Generally, many theories assume that an interpretation towards the subject is preferred in such cases. Later disambiguations which contradict such a preference induce enhanced processing difficulty (i.e. reanalysis) which reflects itself in late positive deflections (P345/P600) in event-related brain potentials (ERPs). In the case of phoric elements such as pronouns, a second strategy is known according to which an ambiguous pronoun preferentially receives the grammatical function that its antecedent has (parallel function strategy). In an ERP study, we show that this strategy can in principle override the general subject preference strategy (known for both pronominal and nonpronominal constituents) and induce an object preference, in case that the pronoun's antecedent is itself an object. Interestingly, the revision of a subject preference leads to a P600 component, whereas the revision of an object preference induces an earlier positivity (P345). In order to show that the latter component is indeed a positivity and not an N400-like negativity in the same time range, we apply an additional analysis based on symbolic dynamics which allows to determine the polarity of an ERP effect on purely methodological grounds. With respect to the two positivities, we argue that the latency differences reflect qualitative differences in the reanalysis processes},
  language  = {en}
}