The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Self‐Priming in Production: Evidence for a Hybrid Model of Syntactic Priming
Open accessAbstract
Syntactic priming in language production is the increased likelihood of using a recently encountered syntactic structure. In this paper, we examine two theories of why speakers can be primed: error‐driven learning accounts (Bock, Dell, Chang, & Onishi, 2007; Chang, Dell, & Bock, 2006) and activation‐based accounts (Pickering & Branigan, 1999; Reitter, Keller, & Moore, 2011). Both theories predict that speakers should be primed by the syntactic choices of others, but only activation‐based accounts predict that speakers should be able to prime themselves. Here we test whether speakers can be primed by their own productions in three behavioral experiments and find evidence of structural persistence following both comprehension and speakers’ own productions. We also find that comprehension‐based priming effects are larger for rarer syntactic structures than for more common ones, which is most consistent with error‐driven accounts. Because neither error‐driven accounts nor activation‐based accounts fully explain the data, we propose a hybrid model.
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
Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue.
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x04000056 · Cited by 2,678
An integrated theory of language production and comprehension
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2013) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x12001495 · Cited by 1,569
The fallacy of placing confidence in confidence intervals
Morey, R. D., Hoekstra, R., Rouder, J. N., Lee, M. D., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2016) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0947-8 · Cited by 577
Research works printed but not linked: 43
- 10.1177/0261927X13499331 · DOI
- Bates D., 2014, lme4: Linear mixed‐effects models using Eigen and S4, R Package Version, 1, 1
- 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.11.005 · DOI
- 10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.07.003 · DOI
- 10.1037/0096-3445.129.2.177 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/0010-0277(90)90035-I · DOI
- Box G. E. P., 1976, Time series analysis: Forecasting and control
- 10.3758/BF03212972 · DOI
- 10.1037/0033-295X.113.2.234 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s11336-018-9604-2 · DOI
- 10.1098/rstb.2012.0394 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00523-5 · DOI
- 10.1111/cogs.12022 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10936-005-6139-3 · DOI
- Hara K., 2018, A data‐driven analysis of workers’ earnings on Amazon Mechanical Turk. In Proceedings of SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’18
- 10.1016/j.jml.2007.07.003 · DOI
- 10.1177/002383099804100202 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00080-3 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0098598 · DOI
- 10.1002/sim.1522 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.cognition.2005.02.006 · DOI
- 10.1177/0956797610392928 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.10.013 · DOI
- 10.3758/BF03193466 · DOI
- 10.1080/01690965.2011.641387 · DOI
- 10.3758/s13421-010-0042-3 · DOI
- Kleinschmidt D. F., 2012, Proceedings of the 34th annual conference of the cognitive science society, 599
- 10.1037/0278-7393.33.3.503 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jml.2016.03.009 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.10.021 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.09.007 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2005.00389.x · DOI
- 10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01293-0 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01165.x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jml.2014.05.008 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jml.2018.05.004 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.bandl.2012.12.003 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF02294801 · DOI
- Spiegelhalter D., 2003, WinBUGS version 1.4.3 [Computer program]
- Szmrecsanyi B., 2008, Morphosyntactic persistence in spoken English. A corpus study at the intersection of variationist sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and discourse analysis
- 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.04.002 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jml.2017.09.004 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Meyer, A. S. (2023) · Journal of Cognition · doi:10.5334/joc.268 · Cited by 34
Metadata
- Authors
- Jacobs, C. L., Cho, S., & Watson, D. G.
- Affiliations
- University of California System (US)
- Vanderbilt University (US)
- Department of Psychology and Human Development Vanderbilt University
- Corresponding author
- Jacobs, Cassandra L.
- Venue
- Cognitive Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-07
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- e12749-e12749
- ISSN
- 0364-0213 (ISSN-L)
- 1551-6709
- OpenAlex
- W2955032262
- Cited by
- 24
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 1.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- osf.io
- Locations
- Cognitive Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
- Keywords
- syntactic priming, self-priming, language production, error-based learning, structural persistence, syntactic structure, hybrid model
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Linguistics, Models, Psychological, Speech, Verbal Behavior, Comprehension, Repetition Priming
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