Cargando…
Individual Differences in Cue Weighting in Sentence Comprehension: An Evaluation Using Approximate Bayesian Computation
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 ai...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MIT Press
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9692063/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36439070 http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00052 |
_version_ | 1784837177309396992 |
---|---|
author | Yadav, Himanshu Paape, Dario Smith, Garrett Dillon, Brian W. Vasishth, Shravan |
author_facet | Yadav, Himanshu Paape, Dario Smith, Garrett Dillon, Brian W. Vasishth, Shravan |
author_sort | Yadav, Himanshu |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9692063 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | MIT Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-96920632022-11-25 Individual Differences in Cue Weighting in Sentence Comprehension: An Evaluation Using Approximate Bayesian Computation Yadav, Himanshu Paape, Dario Smith, Garrett Dillon, Brian W. Vasishth, Shravan Open Mind (Camb) Research Article 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. MIT Press 2022-07-01 /pmc/articles/PMC9692063/ /pubmed/36439070 http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00052 Text en © 2022 Massachusetts Institute of Technology https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For a full description of the license, please visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Yadav, Himanshu Paape, Dario Smith, Garrett Dillon, Brian W. Vasishth, Shravan Individual Differences in Cue Weighting in Sentence Comprehension: An Evaluation Using Approximate Bayesian Computation |
title | Individual Differences in Cue Weighting in Sentence Comprehension: An Evaluation Using Approximate Bayesian Computation |
title_full | Individual Differences in Cue Weighting in Sentence Comprehension: An Evaluation Using Approximate Bayesian Computation |
title_fullStr | Individual Differences in Cue Weighting in Sentence Comprehension: An Evaluation Using Approximate Bayesian Computation |
title_full_unstemmed | Individual Differences in Cue Weighting in Sentence Comprehension: An Evaluation Using Approximate Bayesian Computation |
title_short | Individual Differences in Cue Weighting in Sentence Comprehension: An Evaluation Using Approximate Bayesian Computation |
title_sort | individual differences in cue weighting in sentence comprehension: an evaluation using approximate bayesian computation |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9692063/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36439070 http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00052 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT yadavhimanshu individualdifferencesincueweightinginsentencecomprehensionanevaluationusingapproximatebayesiancomputation AT paapedario individualdifferencesincueweightinginsentencecomprehensionanevaluationusingapproximatebayesiancomputation AT smithgarrett individualdifferencesincueweightinginsentencecomprehensionanevaluationusingapproximatebayesiancomputation AT dillonbrianw individualdifferencesincueweightinginsentencecomprehensionanevaluationusingapproximatebayesiancomputation AT vasishthshravan individualdifferencesincueweightinginsentencecomprehensionanevaluationusingapproximatebayesiancomputation |