Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42459956›Full record

ArticleComputational brain & behavior2024

Memory Retrieval in Online Sentence Parsing: Empirical Evidence, Computational Modelling, and Simulations.

Hiroki Fujita

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Hiroki FujitaDepartment of Linguistics, University of Potsdam, Karl-Liebknecht-Straße 24-25, 14476 Potsdam, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7649-9707

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

ACT–RComputational modellingComputational simulationsLanguage comprehensionMemory retrievalQuantifier floatRevisionSentence parsingSentence processing

Identifiers

PMID42459956
PMCPMC13298627

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.