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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yadav, Himanshu, Paape, Dario, Smith, Garrett, Dillon, Brian W., Vasishth, Shravan
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