ArticleCognitive science2026
Cloze, Frequency, Surprisal, or Plausibility? A Comparative Analysis of Predictors for Local Ambiguity Resolution.
Article in Cognitive science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study investigated the cognitive mechanisms underlying the processing of garden-path sentences by examining the influence of verb/structural bias, cloze probability, surprisal, and plausibility. Using self-paced reading with yes/no comprehension questions, we analyzed a structurally diverse set of 11 types of ambiguous and unambiguous sentences. Our results revealed that cloze probability was the most robust predictor of processing difficulty, significantly influencing both reaction times and response accuracy. Specifically, the likelihood of a misanalysis, as indexed by cloze scores, predicted the persistence of incorrect interpretations and reanalysis difficulty. In contrast, verb bias, surprisal, and plausibility exerted weaker or inconsistent effects, with only plausibility showing a limited interaction in the accuracy data. These findings suggest that comprehenders rely heavily on contextual cues when interpreting syntactically ambiguous input, and that reanalysis success depends not solely on structural preferences or lexical predictability but on the overall likelihood of the initial misanalysis and of the intended interpretation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.