Literature DB >> 33508029

Morphosyntactic but not lexical corpus-based probabilities can substitute for cloze probabilities in reading experiments.

Anastasiya Lopukhina1,2, Konstantin Lopukhin3, Anna Laurinavichyute1,4.   

Abstract

During reading or listening, people can generate predictions about the lexical and morphosyntactic properties of upcoming input based on available context. Psycholinguistic experiments that study predictability or control for it conventionally rely on a human-based approach and estimate predictability via the cloze task. Our study investigated an alternative corpus-based approach for estimating predictability via language predictability models. We obtained cloze and corpus-based probabilities for all words in 144 Russian sentences, correlated the two measures, and found a strong correlation between them. Importantly, we estimated how much variance in eye movements registered while reading the same sentences was explained by each of the two probabilities and whether the two probabilities explain the same variance. Along with lexical predictability (the activation of a particular word form), we analyzed morphosyntactic predictability (the activation of morphological features of words) and its effect on reading times over and above lexical predictability. We found that for predicting reading times, cloze and corpus-based measures of both lexical and morphosyntactic predictability explained the same amount of variance. However, cloze and corpus-based lexical probabilities both independently contributed to a better model fit, whereas for morphosyntactic probabilities, the contributions of cloze and corpus-based measures were interchangeable. Therefore, morphosyntactic but not lexical corpus-based probabilities can substitute for cloze probabilities in reading experiments. Our results also indicate that in languages with rich inflectional morphology, such as Russian, when people engage in prediction, they are much more successful in predicting isolated morphosyntactic features than predicting the particular lexeme and its full morphosyntactic markup.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33508029      PMCID: PMC7842903          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246133

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


  20 in total

1.  Effects of contextual predictability and transitional probability on eye movements during reading.

Authors:  Steven Frisson; Keith Rayner; Martin J Pickering
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 3.051

2.  Tracking the mind during reading: the influence of past, present, and future words on fixation durations.

Authors:  Reinhold Kliegl; Antje Nuthmann; Ralf Engbert
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2006-02

3.  Data from eye-tracking corpora as evidence for theories of syntactic processing complexity.

Authors:  Vera Demberg; Frank Keller
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2008-10-18

Review 4.  The word frequency effect: a review of recent developments and implications for the choice of frequency estimates in German.

Authors:  Marc Brysbaert; Matthias Buchmeier; Markus Conrad; Arthur M Jacobs; Jens Bölte; Andrea Böhl
Journal:  Exp Psychol       Date:  2011

5.  Prediction During Natural Language Comprehension.

Authors:  Roel M Willems; Stefan L Frank; Annabel D Nijhof; Peter Hagoort; Antal van den Bosch
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2015-04-22       Impact factor: 5.357

6.  Limits on lexical prediction during reading.

Authors:  Steven G Luke; Kiel Christianson
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2016-07-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association.

Authors:  M Kutas; S A Hillyard
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1984 Jan 12-18       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  Lexical Predictability During Natural Reading: Effects of Surprisal and Entropy Reduction.

Authors:  Matthew W Lowder; Wonil Choi; Fernanda Ferreira; John M Henderson
Journal:  Cogn Sci       Date:  2018-02-14

9.  Pre-processing in sentence comprehension: Sensitivity to likely upcoming meaning and structure.

Authors:  Katherine A DeLong; Melissa Troyer; Marta Kutas
Journal:  Lang Linguist Compass       Date:  2014-12-08

10.  What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension?

Authors:  Gina R Kuperberg; T Florian Jaeger
Journal:  Lang Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2015-11-13       Impact factor: 2.331

View more
  1 in total

1.  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
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.