The Modulatory Effect of Expectations on Memory Retrieval During Sentence Comprehension

Memory retrieval and probabilistic expectations are recognized factors in sentence comprehension that capture two different critical aspects of processing difficulty: the cost of retrieving and integrating previously processed elements with the new input words and the cost of incorrect predictions about upcoming words or structures in a sentence. Although these two factors have independently received substantial support from the extant literature, how they interact remains poorly understood. The present study investigated memory retrieval and expectation in a single experiment, pitting these factors against each other. Results showed a significant interference effect in both response time to the comprehension questions and reading time at the last (spillover) sentence region. We also found that the interference effect on reading time (but not on comprehension question response time) was canceled when the word at the retrieval site was highly predictable. Overall, our findings are consistent with the hypothesis of a modulatory effect of expectations on memory retrieval and with the idea that expectation-based facilitation results from pre-activation of the target word ahead of time.

[1]  Edward Gibson,et al.  Direct Evidence of Memory Retrieval as a Source of Difficulty in Non-Local Dependencies in Language , 2013, Cogn. Sci..

[2]  Alessandra S. Souza,et al.  In search of the focus of attention in working memory: 13 years of the retro-cue effect , 2016, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[3]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  An Activation-Based Model of Sentence Processing as Skilled Memory Retrieval , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[4]  Frank Keller,et al.  Expectation and Locality Effects in German Verb-final Structures. , 2013, Journal of memory and language.

[5]  Frank Keller,et al.  Data from eye-tracking corpora as evidence for theories of syntactic processing complexity , 2008, Cognition.

[6]  Clinton L. Johns,et al.  Low working memory capacity is only spuriously related to poor reading comprehension , 2014, Cognition.

[7]  E. Gibson The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. , 2000 .

[8]  Michael Esterman,et al.  Perceptual expectation evokes category-selective cortical activity. , 2010, Cerebral cortex.

[9]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  Distinguishing effects of structure and decay on attachment and repair: A cue-based parsing account of recovery from misanalyzed ambiguities , 2003 .

[10]  Edward Gibson,et al.  Consequences of the Serial Nature of Linguistic Input for Sentenial Complexity , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[11]  Wilson L. Taylor,et al.  “Cloze Procedure”: A New Tool for Measuring Readability , 1953 .

[12]  C. Clifton,et al.  The independence of syntactic processing , 1986 .

[13]  Julie A. Van Dyke,et al.  Memory Interference as a Determinant of Language Comprehension , 2012, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[14]  P. Gordon,et al.  Memory interference during language processing. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[15]  Susan M. Garnsey,et al.  Semantic Influences On Parsing: Use of Thematic Role Information in Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution , 1994 .

[16]  John Hale,et al.  A Probabilistic Earley Parser as a Psycholinguistic Model , 2001, NAACL.

[17]  Irina A. Sekerina,et al.  Using the Visual World Paradigm to Study Retrieval Interference in Spoken Language Comprehension , 2016, Front. Psychol..

[18]  Randall Hendrick,et al.  Memory-Load Interference in Syntactic Processing , 2002, Psychological science.

[19]  B. McElree,et al.  Retrieval interference in sentence comprehension. , 2006, Journal of memory and language.

[20]  Edward Gibson,et al.  The nature of working memory capacity in sentence comprehension : Evidence against domain-specific working memory resources , 2006 .

[21]  M. Just,et al.  From the SelectedWorks of Marcel Adam Just 1992 A capacity theory of comprehension : Individual differences in working memory , 2017 .

[22]  Adrian Staub,et al.  Eye movements and processing difficulty in object relative clauses , 2010, Cognition.

[23]  A. Nobre,et al.  Prioritizing Information during Working Memory: Beyond Sustained Internal Attention , 2017, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[24]  R. Baayen,et al.  Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items , 2008 .

[25]  Reinhold Kliegl,et al.  Working memory differences in long-distance dependency resolution , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[26]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  Argument-Head Distance and Processing Complexity: Explaining both Locality and Antilocality Effects , 2006 .

[27]  Mary Vongsackda,et al.  Working memory differences between monolinguals and bilinguals , 2011 .

[28]  Shravan Vasishth,et al.  Locality in German , 2011, Dialogue Discourse.

[29]  Narayanan Srinivasan,et al.  Strong Expectations Cancel Locality Effects: Evidence from Hindi , 2014, PloS one.

[30]  G. A. Miller,et al.  Finitary models of language users , 1963 .

[31]  C. Summerfield,et al.  Expectation (and attention) in visual cognition , 2009, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[32]  Gina R Kuperberg,et al.  What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension? , 2016, Language, cognition and neuroscience.

[33]  Roger Levy,et al.  Memory and surprisal in human sentence comprehension , 2013 .

[34]  Evelina Fedorenko,et al.  The syntactic complexity of Russian relative clauses , 2012, Journal of memory and language.

[35]  Adam Gazzaley,et al.  Expectation-Driven Changes in Cortical Functional Connectivity Influence Working Memory and Long-Term Memory Performance , 2010, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[36]  R. Levy Expectation-based syntactic comprehension , 2008, Cognition.

[37]  M. Pickering,et al.  Predicting While Comprehending Language: A Theory and Review , 2018, Psychological bulletin.

[38]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[39]  Kara D. Federmeier Thinking ahead: the role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. , 2007, Psychophysiology.

[40]  A. Clark Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. , 2013, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[41]  D. Bates,et al.  Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4 , 2014, 1406.5823.

[42]  Sanford Weisberg,et al.  An R Companion to Applied Regression , 2010 .

[43]  Ellen Frances Lau The predictive nature of language comprehension , 2009 .

[44]  A. Nobre,et al.  Top-down modulation: bridging selective attention and working memory , 2012, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[45]  J. V. Van Dyke Cue-dependent interference in comprehension. , 2011, Journal of memory and language.

[46]  D. Schacter,et al.  Remembering the past to imagine the future: the prospective brain , 2007, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[47]  Douglas Roland,et al.  Frequency of Basic English Grammatical Structures: A Corpus Analysis. , 2007, Journal of memory and language.

[48]  J. V. Van Dyke Interference effects from grammatically unavailable constituents during sentence processing. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.