An Activation-Based Model of Sentence Processing as Skilled Memory Retrieval

By Richard L. Lewis, Shravan Vasishth. Cognitive Sciences, 2005

1,007 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d9d5ae94080c135fb6f05677cea5d6d009f01326

How researchers see this paper

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

In Cognitive Neuroscience

Citations in the corpus

Similarity-based interference in sentence comprehension: Literature review and Bayesian meta-analysis (2017, methodology): “We then compare the evidence with the predictions of the computationally implemented cue-based retrieval model of Lewis and Vasishth (2005), henceforth LV05.”
Morphology, agreement and working memory retrieval in sentence production : Evidence from gender and case in Slovak (2007, background): “…a factor that can contribute to the loss of information about their relative order ( Lewandowsky & Murdock , 1989 ) , and it is not difficult to see how this too could undermine processes for encoding and retrieving agreement sources during on - line sentence planning ( Lewis & Vasishth , 2005 ) .”
The extended argument dependency model: a neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. (2006, background): “…accounts (Keller, 2000; Keller & Alexopoulou, 2001), other approaches are either not designed to model word order phenomena by their own account (Lewis & Vasishth, 2005) or encounter difficulties when object-before-subject structures diverge from the English type (e.g., in object-subject-verb…”
Contrasting intrusion profiles for agreement and anaphora: Experimental and modeling evidence (2013, methodology): “11; Gibson, 1998; Lewis & Vasishth, 2005).”
Parsing and Working Memory in Bilingual Sentence Processing (2016, background): “In assuming a bipartite model, recent accounts of language processing have described sentence comprehension as involving skilled memory retrieval (e.g., Lewis et al., 2006; Lewis & Vasishth, 2005).”
SOME NOTES ON THE SHALLOW STRUCTURE HYPOTHESIS (2017, background): “Assuming language processing involves cue-based memory retrieval (e.g., Lewis & Vasishth, 2005), Cunnings argues that for memory retrieval, the L2 sentence comprehension system assigns (a) the same weight as the L1 parser to lexical cues and to cues derived from the local syntactic and semantic…”
Theoretical Limitations of Self-Attention in Neural Sequence Models (2019, background): “Lin et al. (2019) and Tenney et al. (2019) show that BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) encodes syntactic information.”
Agreement attraction in Spanish comprehension (2015, methodology): “This facilitated processing has been attributed to cue-based memory retrieval (Lewis & Vasishth, 2005; Lewis, Vasishth, & Van Dyke, 2006; Wagers et al., 2009).”
Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence (2007, background): “Some working-memory-based theories include the additional component of interference by syntactic similarity between subject noun phrases that need to be simultaneously held in memory (Bever, 1970; Gordon, Hendrick, & Johnson, 2001; Gordon, Hendrick, & Johnson, 2004; Gordon, Hendrick, & Levine, 2002;”
The statistical significance filter leads to overoptimistic expectations of replicability (2018, methodology): “For a similar demonstration investigating similarity-based interference using a larger data-set, see Nicenboim et al. (2018). In conclusion, in this 100-participant study we don’t see any grounds for claiming an interaction between Load and Distance.”
Interference effects from grammatically unavailable constituents during sentence processing. (2007, methodology): “This is illustrated in Figure 3, which depicts the Lewis and Vasishth (2005) parser processing a HiSyn/LoSem construction.”
Agreement Attraction in Comprehension: Representations and Processes. (2009, background): “observed pattern of attraction (Gillund & Shiffrin, 1984; Lewis & Vasishth, 2005 ).”
A Usage-Based Approach to Recursion in Sentence Processing (2009, result): “This result is not predicted by most other current models of sentence processing, in which right-branching recursion does not cause processing difficulties beyond potential length effects (although see Lewis & Vasishth, 2005).”