Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension.

By Michael K. Tanenhaus, M. Spivey-Knowlton, Kathleen M. Eberhard, Julie C. Sedivy. 1995

Subfields: Natural Language Processing, Multimodal Learning

How researchers see this paper

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

In Natural Language Processing

In Multimodal Learning

Citations in the corpus

Long Short-Term Memory-Networks for Machine Reading (2016, background): “English speakers process text sequentially, from left to right, fixating nearly every word while they read (Rayner, 1998) and creating partial representations for sentence prefixes (Konieczny, 2000; Tanenhaus et al., 1995).”
LSTMs Can Learn Syntax-Sensitive Dependencies Well, But Modeling Structure Makes Them Better (2018, neutral): “Only anticipatory representations, it is said, could explain the rapid, incremental processing that humans seem to exhibit (Marslen-Wilson, 1973; Tanenhaus et al., 1995); this line of thinking similarly motivates Charniak (2010), among others.”
Psycholinguistics, formal grammars, and cognitive science (2005, methodology): “Recently, this technique has been adapted for use with spoken language (Tanenhaus et al. 1995).”
What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension? (2015, unknown): “…& Monaghan, 2006; Garnsey et al., 1997; Gibson & Wu, 2013; Hare et al., 2003; Rohde, Levy, & Kehler, 2011; Tanenhaus, Spivey-Knowlton, Eberhard, & Sedivy, 1995; Wilson & Garnsey, 2009), phonological information (Allopenna, Magnuson, & Tanenhaus, 1998; DeLong et al., 2005), and orthographic…”
Taking Perspective in Conversation: The Role of Mutual Knowledge in Comprehension (2000, unknown): “A recent application of an eye-tracking methodology has introduced a novel way to experimentally investigate comprehension processes in real time (Eberhard, Spivey-Knowlton, Sedivy, & Tanenhaus, 1995; Tanenhaus et al., 1995).”
Composition in Distributional Models of Semantics (2010, unknown): “This incrementality can be useful practically, in integrating with the other components of a speech recognition system, and also cognitively consistent with the incrementality of the human language processor (Tanenhaus et al., 1995; Marslen-Wilson, 1973; Konieczny, 2000).”
The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials (2005, background): “Psycholinguistic investigation of such combinatory processing has focused heavily on the construction of syntactic representations, which provide a structural basis for semantic and pragmatic representations (e.g., Altmann & Steedman, 1988; Clifton et al., 2003; Osterhout, Holcomb, & Swinney, 1994; ”
When Peanuts Fall in Love: N400 Evidence for the Power of Discourse (2005, unknown): “With the recent addition of the ‘‘visual world’’ or ‘‘head-mounted’’ eye-tracking paradigm to the psycholinguist’s methodological repertoire, the evidence that extrasentential context can very rapidly affect word and sentence comprehension is steadily accumulating (e.g., Altmann & Kamide, 1999; Tan”
The effect of word predictability on reading time is logarithmic (2013, unknown): “Such a high degree of incrementality goes beyond what has already been established in the visual world paradigm (Tanenhaus et al., 1995) for the incremental processing of the speech signal, and certainly beyond what has otherwise been observed in reading.”
The tug of war between phonological, semantic and shape information in language-mediated visual search (2007, background): “Many previous visual-world studies have required participants to manipulate the objects that are mentioned (Tanenhaus et al., 1995; Allopenna et al., 1998).”