The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Deriving lexical and syntactic expectation-based measures for psycholinguistic modeling via incremental top-down parsing
Open accessAbstract
A number of recent publications have made use of the incremental output of stochastic parsers to derive measures of high utility for psycholinguistic modeling, following the work of Hale (2001; 2003; 2006).In this paper, we present novel methods for calculating separate lexical and syntactic surprisal measures from a single incremental parser using a lexicalized PCFG.We also present an approximation to entropy measures that would otherwise be intractable to calculate for a grammar of that size.Empirical results demonstrate the utility of our methods in predicting human reading times.
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
Building a Large Annotated Corpus of English: The Penn Treebank
Marcus, M. (1993) · doi:10.21236/ada273556 · Cited by 7,405
Stimulus information as a determinant of reaction time.
Hyman, R. (1953) · Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0056940 · Cited by 1,443 · cited 1×
“The effect of entropy, or uncertainty regarding the upcoming input independent of the surprise of that input, has been observed in non-linguistic tasks (Hyman, 1953; Bestmann et al., 2008) but to our knowledge has not been quantified before in the context of sentence processing.”
Background
Cited by
What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension?
Kuperberg, G. R., & Jaeger, T. F. (2016) · Language, Cognition and Neuroscience · doi:10.1080/23273798.2015.1102299 · Cited by 1,087
The effect of word predictability on reading time is logarithmic
Smith, N. J., & Levy, R. (2013) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2013.02.013 · Cited by 725
Predicting while comprehending language: A theory and review.
Pickering, M. J., & Gambi, C. (2018) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000158 · Cited by 518
Prediction during natural language comprehension
Willems, R. M., Frank, S. L., Nijhof, A. D., Hagoort, P., & van den Bosch, A. (2016) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhv075 · Cited by 288
fMRI reveals language-specific predictive coding during naturalistic sentence comprehension
Shain, C., Blank, I. A., van Schijndel, M., Schuler, W., & Fedorenko, E. (2020) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.107307 · Cited by 215
Metadata
- Authors
- Roark, B., Bachrach, A., Cardenas, C., & Pallier, C.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing Volume 1 - EMNLP '09
- Published
- 2009
- Volume
- 1
- Pages
- 324
- OpenAlex
- W2067575282
- Cited by
- 174
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 16.13
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Deriving lexical and syntactic expectation-based measures for psycholinguistic modeling via incremental top-down parsing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3115/1699510.1699553
- The paper
- Roark, B., Bachrach, A., Cardenas, C., & Pallier, C. (2009). Deriving lexical and syntactic expectation-based measures for psycholinguistic modeling via incremental top-down parsing. Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing Volume 1 - EMNLP '09. https://doi.org/10.3115/1699510.1699553
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.
