The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Memory-Load Interference in Syntactic Processing
Abstract
Participants remembered a short set of words while reading syntactically complex sentences (object-extracted clefts) and syntactically simpler sentences (subject-extracted clefts) in a memory-load study. The study also manipulated whether the words in the set and the words in the sentence were of matched or unmatched types (common nouns vs. proper names). Performance in sentence comprehension was worse for complex sentences than for simpler sentences, and this effect was greater when the type of words in the memory load matched the type of words in the sentence. These results indicate that syntactic processing is not modular, instead suggesting that it relies on working memory resources that are used for other nonsyntactic processes. Further, the results indicate that similarity-based interference is an important constraint on information processing that can be overcome to some degree during language comprehension by using the coherence of language to construct integrated representations of meaning.
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
The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.
Miller, G. A. (1994) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.101.2.343 · Cited by 17,161
Fodor, J. A. (1983) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/4737.001.0001 · Cited by 7,734
Individual differences in working memory and reading
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980) · Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(80)90312-6 · Cited by 6,336
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
Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies
Gibson, E. (1998) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(98)00034-1 · Cited by 2,537
Handbook of mathematical psychology: I.
Luce, R. D., Bush, R. R., & Galanter, E. (1963) · Wiley eBooks · Cited by 1,999
"Schema abstraction" in a multiple-trace memory model.
Hintzman, D. L. (1986) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037//0033-295x.93.4.411 · Cited by 1,926
Cowan, N. (1988) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.104.2.163 · Cited by 1,786
Cited by
Reworking the language network
Fedorenko, E., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2014) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.12.006 · Cited by 615
Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: A corpus analysis
Roland, D., Dick, F., & Elman, J. L. (2007) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.03.002 · Cited by 379
Fedorenko, E., & Varley, R. (2016) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/nyas.13046 · Cited by 247
Wehbe, L., Blank, I. A., Shain, C., Futrell, R., Levy, R., von der Malsburg, T., Smith, N., Gibson, E., & Fedorenko, E. (2021) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhab065 · Cited by 72
The Role of Syntactic Structure in Children's Sentence Comprehension: Evidence From the Dative
Rowland, C. F., & Noble, C. L. (2010) · Language Learning and Development · doi:10.1080/15475441003769411 · Cited by 43
Metadata
- Authors
- Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Levine, W. H.
- Venue
- Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2002-09
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 425-430
- ISSN
- 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9280
- OpenAlex
- W2126624372
- Cited by
- 299
- References
- 26
- FWCI
- 2.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Memory-Load Interference in Syntactic Processing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1467-9280.00475
- The paper
- Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Levine, W. H. (2002). Memory-Load Interference in Syntactic Processing. Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00475
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.
