Literature DB >> 23637344

Rational integration of noisy evidence and prior semantic expectations in sentence interpretation.

Edward Gibson1, Leon Bergen, Steven T Piantadosi.   

Abstract

Sentence processing theories typically assume that the input to our language processing mechanisms is an error-free sequence of words. However, this assumption is an oversimplification because noise is present in typical language use (for instance, due to a noisy environment, producer errors, or perceiver errors). A complete theory of human sentence comprehension therefore needs to explain how humans understand language given imperfect input. Indeed, like many cognitive systems, language processing mechanisms may even be "well designed"--in this case for the task of recovering intended meaning from noisy utterances. In particular, comprehension mechanisms may be sensitive to the types of information that an idealized statistical comprehender would be sensitive to. Here, we evaluate four predictions about such a rational (Bayesian) noisy-channel language comprehender in a sentence comprehension task: (i) semantic cues should pull sentence interpretation towards plausible meanings, especially if the wording of the more plausible meaning is close to the observed utterance in terms of the number of edits; (ii) this process should asymmetrically treat insertions and deletions due to the Bayesian "size principle"; such nonliteral interpretation of sentences should (iii) increase with the perceived noise rate of the communicative situation and (iv) decrease if semantically anomalous meanings are more likely to be communicated. These predictions are borne out, strongly suggesting that human language relies on rational statistical inference over a noisy channel.

Entities:  

Keywords:  communication; psycholinguistics; rational inference

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23637344      PMCID: PMC3657782          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1216438110

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  21 in total

1.  The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: a functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence, and duration in spontaneous speech.

Authors:  Matthew Aylett; Alice Turk
Journal:  Lang Speech       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 1.500

Review 2.  Sequential ideal-observer analysis of visual discriminations.

Authors:  W S Geisler
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1989-04       Impact factor: 8.934

3.  When heuristics clash with parsing routines: ERP evidence for conflict monitoring in sentence perception.

Authors:  Marieke van Herten; Dorothee J Chwilla; Herman H J Kolk
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 3.225

4.  A maximum likelihood procedure for the analysis of group and individual data in aphasia research.

Authors:  E Bates; J McDonald; B MacWhinney; M Appelbaum
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  1991-02       Impact factor: 2.381

5.  Expectation-based syntactic comprehension.

Authors:  Roger Levy
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2007-07-30

6.  The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences.

Authors:  Fernanda Ferreira
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Eye movement evidence that readers maintain and act on uncertainty about past linguistic input.

Authors:  Roger Levy; Klinton Bicknell; Tim Slattery; Keith Rayner
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2009-11-24       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Brain potentials and syntactic violations revisited: no evidence for specificity of the syntactic positive shift.

Authors:  T F Münte; H J Heinze; M Matzke; B M Wieringa; S Johannes
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 3.139

9.  Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity.

Authors:  M Kutas; S A Hillyard
Journal:  Science       Date:  1980-01-11       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  Word learning as Bayesian inference.

Authors:  Fei Xu; Joshua B Tenenbaum
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 8.934

View more
  51 in total

1.  Lexical interference effects in sentence processing: evidence from the visual world paradigm and self-organizing models.

Authors:  Anuenue Kukona; Pyeong Whan Cho; James S Magnuson; Whitney Tabor
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2013-11-18       Impact factor: 3.051

2.  Production and comprehension show divergent constituent order preferences: Evidence from elicited pantomime.

Authors:  Matthew L Hall; Y Danbi Ahn; Rachel I Mayberry; Victor S Ferreira
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2015-05-01       Impact factor: 3.059

3.  Variations Within Normal Hearing Acuity and Speech Comprehension: An Exploratory Study.

Authors:  Nicole D Ayasse; Lana R Penn; Arthur Wingfield
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2019-05-14       Impact factor: 1.493

4.  The effect of anomalous utterances on language production.

Authors:  Iva Ivanova; Liane Wardlow; Jill Warker; Victor S Ferreira
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2017-02

5.  Failure to detect function word repetitions and omissions in reading: Are eye movements to blame?

Authors:  Adrian Staub; Sophia Dodge; Andrew L Cohen
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2019-02

6.  Distinct Neural Networks Relate to Common and Speaker-Specific Language Priors.

Authors:  Leon O H Kroczek; Thomas C Gunter
Journal:  Cereb Cortex Commun       Date:  2020-05-29

7.  Effects of prediction and contextual support on lexical processing: prediction takes precedence.

Authors:  Trevor Brothers; Tamara Y Swaab; Matthew J Traxler
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2014-12-08

8.  The influence of event-related knowledge on verb-argument processing in aphasia.

Authors:  Michael Walsh Dickey; Tessa Warren
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2014-12-05       Impact factor: 3.139

9.  Processing of Self-Repairs in Stuttered and Non-Stuttered Speech.

Authors:  Matthew W Lowder; Nathan D Maxfield; Fernanda Ferreira
Journal:  Lang Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2019-06-26       Impact factor: 2.331

10.  Information Structure Preferences in Focus-Sensitive Ellipsis: How Defaults Persist.

Authors:  Jesse A Harris; Katy Carlson
Journal:  Lang Speech       Date:  2017-11-09       Impact factor: 1.500

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.