Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36439070›Full record

ArticleOpen mind : discoveries in cognitive science2022

Individual Differences in Cue Weighting in Sentence Comprehension: An Evaluation Using Approximate Bayesian Computation.

Himanshu Yadav, Dario Paape, Garrett Smith, Brian W Dillon, Shravan Vasishth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Himanshu YadavDepartment of Linguistics, University of Potsdam, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1145-3238
Dario PaapeDepartment of Linguistics, University of Potsdam, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7148-5258
Garrett SmithDepartment of Linguistics, University of Potsdam, Germany.
Brian W DillonDepartment of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, USA.
Shravan VasishthDepartment of Linguistics, University of Potsdam, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2027-1994

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cue-based retrieval theories of sentence processing assume that syntactic dependencies are resolved through a content-addressable search process. An important recent claim is that in certain dependency types, the retrieval cues are weighted such that one cue dominates. This cue-weighting proposal aims to explain the observed average behavior, but here we show that there is systematic individual-level variation in cue weighting. Using the Lewis and Vasishth cue-based retrieval model, we estimated individual-level parameters for reading speed and cue weighting using 13 published datasets; hierarchical approximate Bayesian computation (ABC) was used to estimate the parameters. The modeling reveals a nuanced picture of cue weighting: we find support for the idea that some participants weight cues differentially, but not all participants do. Only fast readers tend to have the predicted higher weighting for structural cues, suggesting that reading proficiency (approximated here by reading speed) might be associated with cue weighting. A broader achievement of the work is to demonstrate how individual differences can be investigated in computational models of sentence processing without compromising the complexity of the model.

Indexed as

approximate Bayesian computationcue-based retrievalhierarchical modelingindividual differencesinterference effect

Identifiers

PMID36439070
PMCPMC9692063

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.