<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="shain-etal-2016-memory-access">
    <titleInfo>
        <title>Memory access during incremental sentence processing causes reading time latency</title>
    </titleInfo>
    <name type="personal">
        <namePart type="given">Cory</namePart>
        <namePart type="family">Shain</namePart>
        <role>
            <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
        </role>
    </name>
    <name type="personal">
        <namePart type="given">Marten</namePart>
        <namePart type="family">van Schijndel</namePart>
        <role>
            <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
        </role>
    </name>
    <name type="personal">
        <namePart type="given">Richard</namePart>
        <namePart type="family">Futrell</namePart>
        <role>
            <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
        </role>
    </name>
    <name type="personal">
        <namePart type="given">Edward</namePart>
        <namePart type="family">Gibson</namePart>
        <role>
            <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
        </role>
    </name>
    <name type="personal">
        <namePart type="given">William</namePart>
        <namePart type="family">Schuler</namePart>
        <role>
            <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
        </role>
    </name>
    <originInfo>
        <dateIssued>2016-12</dateIssued>
    </originInfo>
    <typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
    <relatedItem type="host">
        <titleInfo>
            <title>Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Linguistic Complexity (CL4LC)</title>
        </titleInfo>
        <name type="personal">
            <namePart type="given">Dominique</namePart>
            <namePart type="family">Brunato</namePart>
            <role>
                <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
            </role>
        </name>
        <name type="personal">
            <namePart type="given">Felice</namePart>
            <namePart type="family">Dell’Orletta</namePart>
            <role>
                <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
            </role>
        </name>
        <name type="personal">
            <namePart type="given">Giulia</namePart>
            <namePart type="family">Venturi</namePart>
            <role>
                <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
            </role>
        </name>
        <name type="personal">
            <namePart type="given">Thomas</namePart>
            <namePart type="family">François</namePart>
            <role>
                <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
            </role>
        </name>
        <name type="personal">
            <namePart type="given">Philippe</namePart>
            <namePart type="family">Blache</namePart>
            <role>
                <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
            </role>
        </name>
        <originInfo>
            <publisher>The COLING 2016 Organizing Committee</publisher>
            <place>
                <placeTerm type="text">Osaka, Japan</placeTerm>
            </place>
        </originInfo>
        <genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
    </relatedItem>
    <abstract>Studies on the role of memory as a predictor of reading time latencies (1) differ in their predictions about when memory effects should occur in processing and (2) have had mixed results, with strong positive effects emerging from isolated constructed stimuli and weak or even negative effects emerging from naturally-occurring stimuli. Our study addresses these concerns by comparing several implementations of prominent sentence processing theories on an exploratory corpus and evaluating the most successful of these on a confirmatory corpus, using a new self-paced reading corpus of seemingly natural narratives constructed to contain an unusually high proportion of memory-intensive constructions. We show highly significant and complementary broad-coverage latency effects both for predictors based on the Dependency Locality Theory and for predictors based on a left-corner parsing model of sentence processing. Our results indicate that memory access during sentence processing does take time, but suggest that stimuli requiring many memory access events may be necessary in order to observe the effect.</abstract>
    <identifier type="citekey">shain-etal-2016-memory-access</identifier>
    <location>
        <url>https://aclanthology.org/W16-4106</url>
    </location>
    <part>
        <date>2016-12</date>
        <extent unit="page">
            <start>49</start>
            <end>58</end>
        </extent>
    </part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>

%0 Conference Proceedings
%T Memory access during incremental sentence processing causes reading time latency
%A Shain, Cory
%A van Schijndel, Marten
%A Futrell, Richard
%A Gibson, Edward
%A Schuler, William
%Y Brunato, Dominique
%Y Dell’Orletta, Felice
%Y Venturi, Giulia
%Y François, Thomas
%Y Blache, Philippe
%S Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Linguistic Complexity (CL4LC)
%D 2016
%8 December
%I The COLING 2016 Organizing Committee
%C Osaka, Japan
%F shain-etal-2016-memory-access
%X Studies on the role of memory as a predictor of reading time latencies (1) differ in their predictions about when memory effects should occur in processing and (2) have had mixed results, with strong positive effects emerging from isolated constructed stimuli and weak or even negative effects emerging from naturally-occurring stimuli. Our study addresses these concerns by comparing several implementations of prominent sentence processing theories on an exploratory corpus and evaluating the most successful of these on a confirmatory corpus, using a new self-paced reading corpus of seemingly natural narratives constructed to contain an unusually high proportion of memory-intensive constructions. We show highly significant and complementary broad-coverage latency effects both for predictors based on the Dependency Locality Theory and for predictors based on a left-corner parsing model of sentence processing. Our results indicate that memory access during sentence processing does take time, but suggest that stimuli requiring many memory access events may be necessary in order to observe the effect.
%U https://aclanthology.org/W16-4106
%P 49-58

Markdown (Informal)

[Memory access during incremental sentence processing causes reading time latency](https://aclanthology.org/W16-4106) (Shain et al., CL4LC 2016)

• Memory access during incremental sentence processing causes reading time latency (Shain et al., CL4LC 2016)

ACL

• Cory Shain, Marten van Schijndel, Richard Futrell, Edward Gibson, and William Schuler. 2016. Memory access during incremental sentence processing causes reading time latency. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Linguistic Complexity (CL4LC), pages 49–58, Osaka, Japan. The COLING 2016 Organizing Committee.