Contrasting intrusion profiles for agreement and anaphora: Experimental and modeling evidence

292 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Similarity-based interference in sentence comprehension: Literature review and Bayesian meta-analysis (2017, methodology): “Theoretically, it is also under debate whether the parser indeed relies on a cuebased retrieval mechanism and if yes, whether it does so for all kinds of dependencies or only for certain kinds of dependencies (Dillon et al., 2013).”
RNNs as psycholinguistic subjects: Syntactic state and grammatical dependency (2018, background): “Experimental evidence suggests that humans do not consider antecedents for reﬂexives outside the binding domain (Sturt, 2003; Xiang et al., 2009; Dillon et al., 2013).”
Parsing and Working Memory in Bilingual Sentence Processing (2016, background): “For L1 speakers, the syntactic locality requirement for a clausemate antecedent constitutes a highly weighted retrieval cue (Dillon et al., 2013).”
The statistical significance filter leads to overoptimistic expectations of replicability (2018, background): “…means and 95% credible intervals of the predicted facilitation effect from 10 published studies on subject-verb dependencies with number agreement (Dillon et al., 2013; Lago et al., 2015; Wagers et al., 2009) and two studies on subjectverb dependencies with a semantic plausibility manipulation…”
Open Sesame: Getting inside BERT’s Linguistic Knowledge (2019, background): “Dillon et al. (2013) aim to quantify this intrusion effect in human reading for the two dependencies we explore here.”