Literature DB >> 30195136

Comprehenders model the nature of noise in the environment.

Rachel Ryskin1, Richard Futrell2, Swathi Kiran3, Edward Gibson4.   

Abstract

In everyday communication, speakers make errors and produce language in a noisy environment. Recent work suggests that comprehenders possess cognitive mechanisms for dealing with noise in the linguistic signal: a noisy-channel model. A key parameter of these models is the noise model: the comprehender's implicit model of how noise affects utterances before they are perceived. Here we examine this noise model in detail, asking whether comprehension behavior reflects a noise model that is adapted to context. We asked readers to correct sentences if they noticed errors, and manipulated context by including exposure sentences containing obvious deletions (A bystander was rescued by the fireman in the nick time.), insertions, exchanges, mixed errors, or no errors. On test sentences (The bat swung the player.), participants' corrections differed depending on the exposure condition. The results demonstrate that participants model specific types of errors and make inferences about the intentions of the speaker accordingly.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adaptation; Error correction; Noisy-channel; Rational inference; Sentence comprehension

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30195136      PMCID: PMC6252256          DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.08.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cognition        ISSN: 0010-0277


  11 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  Robust speech perception: recognize the familiar, generalize to the similar, and adapt to the novel.

Authors:  Dave F Kleinschmidt; T Florian Jaeger
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 8.934

3.  Don't Underestimate the Benefits of Being Misunderstood.

Authors:  Edward Gibson; Caitlin Tan; Richard Futrell; Kyle Mahowald; Lars Konieczny; Barbara Hemforth; Evelina Fedorenko
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2017-04-10

4.  Redundancy and reduction: speakers manage syntactic information density.

Authors:  T Florian Jaeger
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  A failure to replicate rapid syntactic adaptation in comprehension.

Authors:  Caoimhe M Harrington Stack; Ariel N James; Duane G Watson
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2018-08

6.  Effects of distributional information on categorization of prosodic contours.

Authors:  Chigusa Kurumada; Meredith Brown; Michael K Tanenhaus
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-06

7.  Verb biases are shaped through lifelong learning.

Authors:  Rachel A Ryskin; Zhenghan Qi; Melissa C Duff; Sarah Brown-Schmidt
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2016-10-20       Impact factor: 3.051

8.  Word learning as Bayesian inference.

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

9.  Partner-specific interpretation of maintained referential precedents during interactive dialog.

Authors:  Sarah Brown-Schmidt
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2009-08-01       Impact factor: 3.059

10.  Rapid Expectation Adaptation during Syntactic Comprehension.

Authors:  Alex B Fine; T Florian Jaeger; Thomas A Farmer; Ting Qian
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-10-30       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  1 in total

1.  Children's syntactic parsing and sentence comprehension with a degraded auditory signal.

Authors:  Isabel A Martin; Matthew J Goupell; Yi Ting Huang
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2022-02       Impact factor: 1.840

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.