The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Experience and sentence processing: Statistical learning and relative clause comprehension
Open accessAbstract
Many explanations of the difficulties associated with interpreting object relative clauses appeal to the demands that object relatives make on working memory. MacDonald and Christiansen (2002) pointed to variations in reading experience as a source of differences, arguing that the unique word order of object relatives makes their processing more difficult and more sensitive to the effects of previous experience than the processing of subject relatives. This hypothesis was tested in a large-scale study manipulating reading experiences of adults over several weeks. The group receiving relative clause experience increased reading speeds for object relatives more than for subject relatives, whereas a control experience group did not. The reading time data were compared to performance of a computational model given different amounts of experience. The results support claims for experience-based individual differences and an important role for statistical learning in sentence comprehension processes.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.
Miller, G. A. (1956) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0043158 · Cited by 17,812
A capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.99.1.122 · Cited by 4,153
Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.102.2.211 · Cited by 3,498
Distributed representations, simple recurrent networks, and grammatical structure
Elman, J. L. (1991) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/bf00114844 · Cited by 1,354
The persistence of structural priming: Transient activation or implicit learning?
Bock, K., & Griffin, Z. M. (2000) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.129.2.177 · Cited by 950
Statistical Language Learning: Mechanisms and Constraints
Saffran, J. R. (2003) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/1467-8721.01243 · Cited by 624
Language Acquisition and Use: Learning and Applying Probabilistic Constraints
Seidenberg, M. S. (1997) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.275.5306.1599 · Cited by 338
The functions of structural priming
Ferreira, V. S., & Bock, K. (2006) · Language and Cognitive Processes · doi:10.1080/01690960600824609 · Cited by 266
Kidd, E., Brandt, S., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2007) · Language and Cognitive Processes · doi:10.1080/01690960601155284 · Cited by 196
Cited by
Implicit Statistical Learning: A Tale of Two Literatures
Christiansen, M. H. (2019) · Topics in Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/tops.12332 · Cited by 167
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- WELLS, J., CHRISTIANSEN, M., RACE, D., ACHESON, D., & MACDONALD, M.
- Venue
- Cognitive Psychology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-03
- Volume
- 58
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 250-271
- ISSN
- 0010-0285 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2152516403
- Cited by
- 397
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 6.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.