Literature DB >> 23681560

A framework for modeling the interaction of syntactic processing and eye movement control.

Felix Engelmann1, Shravan Vasishth, Ralf Engbert, Reinhold Kliegl.   

Abstract

We explore the interaction between oculomotor control and language comprehension on the sentence level using two well-tested computational accounts of parsing difficulty. Previous work (Boston, Hale, Vasishth, & Kliegl, 2011) has shown that surprisal (Hale, 2001; Levy, 2008) and cue-based memory retrieval (Lewis & Vasishth, 2005) are significant and complementary predictors of reading time in an eyetracking corpus. It remains an open question how the sentence processor interacts with oculomotor control. Using a simple linking hypothesis proposed in Reichle, Warren, and McConnell (2009), we integrated both measures with the eye movement model EMMA (Salvucci, 2001) inside the cognitive architecture ACT-R (Anderson et al., 2004). We built a reading model that could initiate short "Time Out regressions" (Mitchell, Shen, Green, & Hodgson, 2008) that compensate for slow postlexical processing. This simple interaction enabled the model to predict the re-reading of words based on parsing difficulty. The model was evaluated in different configurations on the prediction of frequency effects on the Potsdam Sentence Corpus. The extension of EMMA with postlexical processing improved its predictions and reproduced re-reading rates and durations with a reasonable fit to the data. This demonstration, based on simple and independently motivated assumptions, serves as a foundational step toward a precise investigation of the interaction between high-level language processing and eye movement control.
Copyright © 2013 Cognitive Science Society, Inc.

Keywords:  Computational modeling; Eye movements; Parsing difficulty; Reading; Sentence comprehension; Surprisal; Working memory

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23681560     DOI: 10.1111/tops.12026

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Top Cogn Sci        ISSN: 1756-8757


  5 in total

1.  False Positives and Other Statistical Errors in Standard Analyses of Eye Movements in Reading.

Authors:  Titus von der Malsburg; Bernhard Angele
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2016-12-09       Impact factor: 3.059

2.  Interference patterns in subject-verb agreement and reflexives revisited: A large-sample study.

Authors:  Lena A Jäger; Daniela Mertzen; Julie A Van Dyke; Shravan Vasishth
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2019-12-10       Impact factor: 3.059

3.  Individuals with dyslexia use a different visual sampling strategy to read text.

Authors:  Léon Franzen; Zoey Stark; Aaron P Johnson
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-03-19       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Language Models Explain Word Reading Times Better Than Empirical Predictability.

Authors:  Markus J Hofmann; Steffen Remus; Chris Biemann; Ralph Radach; Lars Kuchinke
Journal:  Front Artif Intell       Date:  2022-02-02

5.  Parsing Model and a Rational Theory of Memory.

Authors:  Jakub Dotlačil; Puck de Haan
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2021-06-23
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.