Cognitive control affects the reanalysis of reduced complement clause ambiguities

References

• Baayen RH, Milin P. 2010. Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research 3(2): 12. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.807
   Google Scholar
• Barr DJ, Levy R, Scheepers C, Tily HJ. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68(3): 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1): 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bialystok E, Craik FIM, Green DW, Gollan TH. 2009. Bilingual minds. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 10(3): 89–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100610387084
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bilenko NY, Grindrod CM, Myers EB, Blumstein SE. 2009. Neural correlates of semantic competition during processing of ambiguous words. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 21(5): 960–975. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21073
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Botvinick MM, Braver TS, Barch DM, Carter CS, Cohen JD. 2001. Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review 108(3): 624–652. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.624
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Centre for Lexical Information. 1993. The Celex lexical database. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Christianson K, Hollingworth A, Halliwell JF, Ferreira F. 2001. Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology 42(4): 368–407. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0752
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duffy SA, Kambe G, Rayner K. 2001. The effect of prior disambiguating context on the comprehension of ambiguous words: Evidence from eye movements. In: Gorfein DS (ed.), Decade of behavior. On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. pp. 27–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/10459-002
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira F. 2003. The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology 47(2): 164–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00005-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fedorenko E. 2014. The role of domain-general cognitive control in language comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology 5: 00335. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00335
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frazier L, Fodor JD. 1978. The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition 6(4): 291–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(78)90002-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friederici AD, Steinhauer K, Mecklinger A, Meyer M. 1998. Working memory constraints on syntactic ambiguity resolution as revealed by electrical brain responses. Biological Psychology 47(3): 193–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-0511(97)00033-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gorrell P. 1995. Syntax and parsing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511627682
   Google Scholar
• Gray JR, Chabris CF, Braver TS. 2003. Neural mechanisms of general fluid intelligence. Nature Neuroscience 6(3): 316–322. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmes VM, Kennedy A, Murray WS. 1987. Syntactic structure and the garden path. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 39(2): 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748708401787
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsu NS, Novick JM. 2016. Dynamic engagement of cognitive control modulates recovery from misinterpretation during real-time language processing. Psychological Science 27(4): 572–582. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615625223
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsu NS, Jaeggi S, Novick JM. 2017. A common neural hub resolves syntactic and non-syntactic conflict through cooperation with task-specific networks. Brain and Language 166: 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2016.12.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hussey EK, Harbison JI, Teubner-Rhodes SE, Mishler A, Velnoskey K, Novick JM. 2016. Memory and language improvements following cognitive control training. Journal of Experimental Psychology 43(1): 23–58. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000283
   Google Scholar
• Hussey EK, Ward N, Christianson K, Kramer AF. 2015. Language and memory improvements following tDCS of left lateral prefrontal cortex. PloS One 10(11): e0141417. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141417
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• January D, Trueswell JC, Thompson-Schill SL. 2009. Co-localization of stroop and syntactic ambiguity resolution in Broca’s area: implications for the neural basis of sentence processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 21(12): 2434–2444. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.21179
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennedy A, Murray WS, Jennings F, Reid C. 1989. Parsing complements: Comments on the generality of the principle of minimal attachment. Language and Cognitive Processes 4(3-4): SI51. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690968908406363
   Google Scholar
• Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RHB. 2017. lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software 82(13): 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacDonald MC, Just MA, Carpenter PA. 1992. Working memory constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity. Cognitive Psychology 24(1): 56–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(92)90003-K
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacDonald MC, Pearlmutter NJ, Seidenberg MS. 1994. The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review 101(4): 676–703. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.676
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malyutina S, den Ouden D-B. 2016. What is it that lingers? Garden-path (mis)interpretations in younger and older adults. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 69(5): 880–906. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1045530
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marian V, Blumenfeld HK, Kaushanskaya M. 2007. The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research 50(4): 940. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2007/067)
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marslen-Wilson W. 1973. Linguistic structure and speech shadowing at very short latencies. Nature 244(5417): 522–523. https://doi.org/10.1038/244522a0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller EK, Cohen JD. 2001. An integrative theory of pre-frontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience 24(1): 167–202. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miyake A, Friedman NP. 2012. The nature and organization of individual differences in executive functions: Four general conclusions. Current Directions in Psychological Science 21(1): 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411429458
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicenboim B, Logačev P, Gattei C, Vasishth S. 2016. When high-capacity readers slow down and low-capacity readers speed up: Working memory and locality effects. Frontiers in Psychology 7: 00280. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00280
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Novick JM, Hussey E, Teubner-Rhodes S, Harbison JI, Bunting MF. 2014. Clearing the garden-path: Improving sentence processing through cognitive control training. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 29(2): 186–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.758297
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Novick JM, Kan IP, Trueswell JC, Thompson-Schill SL. 2009. A case for conflict across multiple domains: Memory and language impairments following damage to ventrolateral prefrontal cortex. Cognitive Neuropsychology 26(6): 527–567. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290903519367
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Novick JM, Trueswell JC, Thompson-Schill SL. 2005. Cognitive control and parsing: reexamining the role of Broca’s area in sentence comprehension. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience 5(3): 263–281. https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.5.3.263
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nozari N, Trueswell JC, Thompson-Schill SL. 2016. The interplay of local attraction, context and domain-general cognitive control in activation and suppression of semantic distractors during sentence comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 23(6): 1942–1953. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1068-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patson ND, Darowski ES, Moon N, Ferreira F. 2009. Lingering misinterpretations in garden-path sentences: evidence from a paraphrasing task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 35(1): 280–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014276
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearlmutter NJ, MacDonald MC. 1995. Individual differences and probabilistic constraints in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 34(4): 521–542.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peirce JW. 2007. PsychoPy – Psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 162(1-2): 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peirce J, Gray JR, Simpson S, MacAskill M, Höchenberger R, Sogo H, Kastman E, Lindeløv JK. 2019. PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research Methods 51(1): 195–203. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-01193-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickering MJ, Traxler MJ. 1998. Plausibility and recovery from garden paths: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 24(4): 940–961. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.24.4.940
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pritchett BL. 1992. Grammatical competence and parsing performance. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Psychology Software Tools, Inc. [E-Prime 3.0]. 2016. https://www.pstnet.com
   Google Scholar
• R Core Team. 2022. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Slattery TJ, Sturt P, Christianson K, Yoshida M, Ferreira F. 2013. Lingering misinterpretations of garden path sentences arise from competing syntactic representations. Journal of Memory and Language 69(2): 104–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spivey-Knowlton MJ, Trueswell J, Tanenhaus M. 1993. Context effects in syntactic ambiguity resolution: Discourse and semantic influences in parsing reduced relative clauses. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 47(2): 276–309. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0078826
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sturt P. 1996. Monotonic syntactic processing: A cross-linguistic study of attachment and reanalysis. Language and Cognitive Processes 11(5), 449–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/016909696387123
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sturt P. 2007. Semantic re-interpretation and garden path recovery. Cognition 105(2): 477–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.10.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sturt P, Pickering MJ, Crocker MW. 1999. Structural change and reanalysis difficulty in language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 40(1): 136–150. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2606
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanenhaus MK. 2007. Eye movements and spoken language processing. In: van Gompel RPG, Fischer MH, Murray WS, Hill RL (eds), Eye Movements: A Window on Mind and Brain. Amsterdam: Elsevier. pp. 443–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044980-7/50022-7
   Google Scholar
• Teubner-Rhodes SE, Mishler A, Corbett R, Andreu L, Sanz-Torrent M, Trueswell JC, Novick JM. 2016. The effects of bilingualism on conflict monitoring, cognitive control, and garden-path recovery. Cognition 150: 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.02.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson-Schill SL, Bedny M, Goldberg RF. 2005. The frontal lobes and the regulation of mental activity. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 15(2): 219–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2005.03.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thothathiri M, Kim A, Trueswell JC, Thompson-Schill SL. 2012. Parametric effects of syntactic-semantic conflict in Broca’s area during sentence processing. Brain and Language 120(3): 259–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2011.12.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thothathiri M, Asaro CT, Hsu NS, Novick JM. 2018. Who did what? A causal role for cognitive control in thematic role assignment during sentence comprehension, Cognition 178: 162–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.05.014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van de Meerendonk N, Rueschemeyer S-A, Kolk HHJ. 2013. Language comprehension interrupted: Both language errors and word degradation activate Broca’s area. Brain and Language 126(3): 291–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2013.07.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Herten M, Kolk HHJ, Chwilla DJ. 2005. An ERP study of P600 effects elicited by semantic anomalies. Cognitive Brain Research 22(2): 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.09.002
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vissers CTWM, Chwilla DJ, Kolk HHJ. 2007. The interplay of heuristics and parsing routines in sentence comprehension: Evidence from ERPs and reaction times. Biological Psychology 75(1): 8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2006.10.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vuong LC, Martin RC. 2011. LIFG-based attentional control and the resolution of lexical ambiguities in sentence context. Brain & Language 116(1): 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2010.09.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vuong LC, Martin RC. 2014. Domain-specific executive control and the revision of misinterpretations in sentence comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 29(3): 312–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.836231
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vuong LC, Martin RC. 2015. The role of LIFG-based executive control in sentence comprehension. Cognitive Neuropsychology 32(5): 243–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2015.1057558
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ye Z, Zhou X. 2008. Involvement of cognitive control in sentence comprehension: Evidence from ERPs. Brain Research 1203: 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2008.01.090
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ye Z, Zhou X. 2009. Conflict control during sentence comprehension: fMRI evidence. NeuroImage 48(1): 280–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.06.032
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar