ArticleComputational brain & behavior2024
Memory Retrieval in Online Sentence Parsing: Empirical Evidence, Computational Modelling, and Simulations.
Article in Computational brain & behavior, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reassessing cumulative self-paced reading (SPR): Testing three variants shows cumulative SPR can be more useful than standard non-cumulative SPR for sentence-processing research, depending on presentation format.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Real-time resolution of VP ellipsis ambiguity and processing depth.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Article
- Competing Biases in Real-Time Sentence Processing.Journal of cognition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper reports two experiments (Experiments 1 and 2) and computational simulations designed to investigate and model memory retrieval processes during real-time sentence processing. Central to this study is the hypothesis that linguistic information serves as a cue to retrieve target representations from memory during dependency formation. The basis for this cue-based memory retrieval stems from research showing that non-target representations that match a set of retrieval cues interfere with target retrieval. The susceptibility to this similarity-based interference has been debated in the sentence processing literature, and various hypotheses and models have been formulated and developed. This issue is addressed empirically in Experiments 1 and 2, which investigated similarity-based interference in sentences with a floating quantifier. Bayesian linear mixed models and Bayes factor analyses suggested similarity-based interference. However, the patterns of interference were not consistent with existing theories and models. To reconcile these findings within the framework of cue-based memory retrieval, this paper implements
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.