TY - JOUR
T1 - Retrieval cues and syntactic ambiguity resolution
T2 - speed-accuracy tradeoff evidence
AU - Martin, Andrea E.
AU - McElree, Brian
N1 - Funding Information:
We thank Kathy Akey and Lisbeth Dyer for assistance with data collection. We are grateful to Janet Dean Fodor and Mante S. Nieuwland for comments on an earlier version of this work. All errors remain our own. This research was supported by a National Institutes of Health grant [R01-HD056200] awarded to BM. AEM was supported by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship [2006025605], a Juan de la Cierva Fellowship from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation [JCI-2011-10228], and a Future Research Leaders grant from the Economic and Social Research Council of the United Kingdom [ES/K009095/1].
Funding Information:
This work was supported by Division of Graduate Education: [grant number Graduate Research Fellowship 2006025605]; Economic and Social Research Council: [grant number ES/ K009095/1]; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development: [grant number R01-HD056200]; Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación: [grant number Juan de la Cierva Fellowship JCI-2011-10228].
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
PY - 2018/7/3
Y1 - 2018/7/3
N2 - Language comprehension involves coping with ambiguity and recovering from misanalysis. Syntactic ambiguity resolution is associated with increased reading times, a classic finding that has shaped theories of sentence processing. However, reaction times conflate the time it takes a process to complete with the quality of the behavior-related information available to the system. We therefore used the speed-accuracy tradeoff procedure (SAT) to derive orthogonal estimates of processing time and interpretation accuracy, and tested whether stronger retrieval cues (via semantic relatedness: neighed->horse vs. fell->horse) aid interpretation during recovery. On average, ambiguous sentences took 250ms longer (SAT rate) to interpret than unambiguous controls, demonstrating veridical differences in processing time. Retrieval cues more strongly related to the true subject always increased accuracy, regardless of ambiguity. These findings are consistent with a language processing architecture where cue-driven operations give rise to interpretation, and wherein diagnostic cues aid retrieval, regardless of parsing difficulty or structural uncertainty.
AB - Language comprehension involves coping with ambiguity and recovering from misanalysis. Syntactic ambiguity resolution is associated with increased reading times, a classic finding that has shaped theories of sentence processing. However, reaction times conflate the time it takes a process to complete with the quality of the behavior-related information available to the system. We therefore used the speed-accuracy tradeoff procedure (SAT) to derive orthogonal estimates of processing time and interpretation accuracy, and tested whether stronger retrieval cues (via semantic relatedness: neighed->horse vs. fell->horse) aid interpretation during recovery. On average, ambiguous sentences took 250ms longer (SAT rate) to interpret than unambiguous controls, demonstrating veridical differences in processing time. Retrieval cues more strongly related to the true subject always increased accuracy, regardless of ambiguity. These findings are consistent with a language processing architecture where cue-driven operations give rise to interpretation, and wherein diagnostic cues aid retrieval, regardless of parsing difficulty or structural uncertainty.
KW - Sentence processing
KW - cue-based retrieval
KW - reanalysis
KW - retrieval interference
KW - speed-accuracy tradeoff
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85041101400&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85041101400&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/23273798.2018.1427877
DO - 10.1080/23273798.2018.1427877
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85041101400
VL - 33
SP - 769
EP - 783
JO - Language, Cognition and Neuroscience
JF - Language, Cognition and Neuroscience
SN - 2327-3798
IS - 6
ER -