Anderson, J. R. 1974. Retrieval of propositional information from long-term memory. Cognitive Psychology, 6(4), 451–474.Google Scholar

Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., and Qin, Y. 2004. An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1036–1060.Google Scholar

Anderson, John R., and Lebiere, Christian. 1998. Atomic Components of Thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar

Ariel, M. 1990. Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Arnold, D. 2007. Non-restrictive relatives are not orphans. Journal of Linguistics, 43(2), 271–309.Google Scholar

Arnold, J. E. 2001. The effect of thematic roles on pronoun use and frequency of reference continuation. Discourse Processes, 31, 137–162.Google Scholar

Avetisyan, S., Lago, S., and Vasishth, S. 2020. Does case marking affect agreement attraction in comprehension? Journal of Memory and Language, 112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2020.104087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Avrutin, S. 2006. Weak syntax. In Grodzinsky, Y. and Amunts, K., eds., Broca's Region. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 49–62.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. H., Milin, P., Djurdjević, D. F., Hendrix, P., and Marelli, M. 2011. An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naive discriminative learning. Psychological Review, 118(3), 438.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., and van Rijn, H. 1993. The CELEX lexical data base on CD-ROM. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Baddeley, A. D. 2003. Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4(10), 829–839.Google Scholar

Baddeley, A. D., and Hitch, G. J. 1974. Working memory. In Bower, G. A., ed., The Psychology of Learning and Motivation. Vol. 8. New York: Academic Press, pp. 47–89.Google Scholar

Badecker, W., and Straub, K. 2002. The processing role of structural constraints on the interpretation of pronouns and anaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(4), 748–769.Google ScholarPubMed

Bader, M. 2016. Complex center embedding in German – The effect of sentence position. In Featherston, S. and Versley, Y., eds., Quantitative Approaches to Grammar and Grammatical Change: Perspectives from Germanic. Berlin/Potsdam: DeGruyter Mouton, pp. 9–31.Google Scholar

Bartek, B., Lewis, R. L., Vasishth, S., and Smith, M. R. 2011. In search of on-line locality effects in sentence comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(5), 1178–1198.Google Scholar

Beretta, A., and Munn, A. 1998. Double-agents and trace-deletion in agrammatism. Brain and Language, 65(3), 404–421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Berman, M. G., Jonides, J., and Lewis, R. L. 2009. In search of decay in verbal short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(2), 317.Google Scholar

Berwick, R., and Weinberg, A. 1984. The Grammatical Basis of Linguistic Performance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bicknell, K., and Levy, R. 2010. A rational model of eye movement control in reading. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Uppsala, Sweden: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 1168–1178.Google Scholar

Binder, K. S., Duffy, S. A., and Rayner, K. 2001. The effects of thematic fit and discourse context on syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 44(2), 297–324.Google Scholar

Blastland, M., and Spiegelhalter, D. 2014. The Norm Chronicles: Stories and Numbers about Danger and Death. London: Profile Books.Google Scholar

Blitzstein, Joseph K, and Hwang, Jessica. 2014. Introduction to Probability. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC.Google Scholar

Blumstein, S. E., Byma, G., Kurowski, K., Hourihan, J., Brown, T., and Hutchinson, A. 1998. On-line processing of filler-gap construction in aphasia. Brain and Language, 61(2), 149–168.Google Scholar

Booth, R. W., and Weger, U. W. 2013. The function of regressions in reading: Backward eye movements allow rereading. Memory and Cognition, 41(1), 82–97.Google Scholar

Boston, M. F., Hale, J. T., Patil, U., Kliegl, R., and Vasishth, S. 2008. Parsing costs as predictors of reading difficulty: An evaluation using the Potsdam Sentence Corpus. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 2(1), 1–12.Google Scholar

Boston, M. F., Hale, J. T., Vasishth, S., and Kliegl, R. 2011. Parallel processing and sentence comprehension difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(3), 301–349.Google Scholar

Brasoveanu, Adrian, and Dotlačil, Jakub. 2020. Computational Cognitive Modeling and Linguistic Theory. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

Brennan, S. E. 1995. Centering attention in discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10(2), 137–167.Google Scholar

Brown, J. 1958. Some tests of the decay theory of immediate memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 10, 173–189.Google Scholar

Budiu, R., and Anderson, J. 2004. Interpretation-based processing: A unified theory of semantic sentence comprehension. Cognitive Science, 28(1), 1–44.Google Scholar

Burkhardt, P., Piñango, M. M., and Wong, K. 2003. The role of the anterior left hemisphere in real-time sentence comprehension: Evidence from split intransitivity. Brain and Language, 86(1), 9–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bürki, Audrey, Elbuy, Shereen, Madec, Sylvain, and Vasishth, Shravan. 2020. What did we learn from forty years of research on semantic interference? A Bayesian meta-analysis. Journal of Memory and Language. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2020.104125.Google Scholar

Busemeyer, J. R., and Diederich, A. 2010. Cognitive Modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Bybee, J. L. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–733.Google Scholar

Caplan, D. 2009. The neural basis of syntactic processing. In Gazzaniga, M. S., ed., The Cognitive Neurosciences, 4th ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 805–816.Google Scholar

Caplan, D. 2012. Resource reduction accounts of syntactically based comprehension disorders. In Bastiaanse, R. and Thompson, C. K., eds., Perspectives on Agrammatism. Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press, pp. 48–62.Google Scholar

Caplan, D., Baker, C., and Dehaut, F. 1985. Syntactic determinants of sentence comprehension in aphasia. Cognition, 21(2), 117–175.Google Scholar

Caplan, D., Michaud, J., and Hufford, R. 2015. Mechanisms underlying syntactic comprehension deficits in vascular aphasia: New evidence from self-paced listening. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 32(5), 283–313.Google Scholar

Caplan, D., and Waters, G. 2003. On-line syntactic processing in aphasia: Studies with auditory moving window presentation. Brain and Language, 84(2), 222–249.Google Scholar

Caplan, D., and Waters, G. 2005. The relationship between age, processing speed, working memory capacity, and language comprehension. Memory, 13(3–4), 403–413.Google Scholar

Caplan, D., Waters, G., Dede, G., Michaud, J., and Reddy, A. 2007. A study of syntactic processing in aphasia I: Behavioral (psycholinguistic) aspects. Brain and Language, 101(2), 103–150.Google Scholar

Caplan, D., and Waters, G. S. 1995. Aphasic disorders of syntactic comprehension and working memory capacity. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 12(6), 637–649.Google Scholar

Carminati, M. N. 2005. Processing reflexes of the Feature Hierarchy (Person > Number > Gender) and implications for linguistic theory. Lingua, 115(3), 259–285.Google Scholar

Carpenter, B., Gelman, A., Hoffman, M., Lee, D., Goodrich, B., Betancourt, M., Brubaker, M. A., Guo, J., Li, P., and Riddell, A. 2016. Stan: A probabilistic programming language. Journal of Statistical Software, 20, 1–37.Google Scholar

Carreiras, M., and Clifton, C. Jr. 1993. Relative clause interpretation preferences in Spanish and English. Language and Speech, 36(4), 353–372.Google Scholar

Carreiras, M., Duñabeitia, J. A., Vergara, M., de la Cruz-Pavía, I., and Laka, I. 2010. Subject relative clauses are not universally easier to process: Evidence from Basque. Cognition, 115(1), 79–92.Google Scholar

Chafe, W. L. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Li, C. N., ed., Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, pp. 25–56.Google Scholar

Cho, P. W., Goldrick, M., and Smolensky, P. 2017. Incremental parsing in a continuous dynamical system: Sentence processing in Gradient Symbolic Computation. Linguistics Vanguard, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0105.Google Scholar

Cho, S., and Thompson, C. K. 2010. What goes wrong during passive sentence production in agrammatic aphasia: An eyetracking study. Aphasiology, 24(12), 1576–1592.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar

Choy, J. Janet, and Thompson, C. K. 2010. Binding in agrammatic aphasia: Processing to comprehension. Aphasiology, 24(5), 551–579.Google Scholar

Clark, D. G. 2012. Storage costs and heuristics interact to produce patterns of aphasic sentence comprehension performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–19.Google Scholar

Cohen, J. 1962. The statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: A review. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65(3), 145.Google Scholar

Cowan, N. 2001. The magical number 4 in short-term memory: a reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 87–114.Google Scholar

Cowles, H. W., Walenski, M., and Kluender, R. 2007. Linguistic and cognitive prominence in anaphor resolution: Topic, contrastive focus and pronouns. Topoi, 26(1), 3–18.Google Scholar

Crescentini, C., and Stocco, A. 2005. Agrammatism as a failure in the lexical activation process. In Bara, B., Barsalou, L., and Bucciarelli, M., M., eds., Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Cunnings, I., and Felser, C. 2013. The role of working memory in the processing of reflexives. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(1–2), 188–219.Google Scholar

Cunnings, I., and Sturt, P. 2018. Retrieval interference and sentence interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language, 102, 16–27.Google Scholar

Daily, L. Z., Lovett, M. C., and Reder, L. M. 2001. Modeling individual differences in working memory performance: A source activation account. Cognitive Science, 25(3), 315–353.Google Scholar

Daneman, M., and Carpenter, P. A. 1980. Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(4), 450–466.Google Scholar

Demberg, V., and Keller, F. 2008. Data from eye-tracking corpora as evidence for theories of syntactic processing complexity. Cognition, 109(2), 193–210.Google Scholar

Dickey, M. W., Choy, J. J., and Thompson, C. K. 2007. Real-time comprehension of wh- movement in aphasia: Evidence from eyetracking while listening. Brain and Language, 100(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Dickey, M. W., and Thompson, C. K. 2006. Automatic processing of wh- and NP-movement in agrammatic aphasia: Evidence from eyetracking. Brain and Language, 99(1–2), 63–64.Google Scholar

Dickey, M. W., and Thompson, C. K. 2009. Automatic processing of wh- and NP-movement in agrammatic aphasia: Evidence from eyetracking. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22(6), 563–583.Google Scholar

Dillon, B. 2011. Structured Access in Sentence Comprehension. PhD thesis, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar

Dillon, B., Mishler, A., Sloggett, S., and Phillips, C. 2013. Contrasting intrusion profiles for agreement and anaphora: Experimental and modeling evidence. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(2), 85–103.Google Scholar

Du Bois, J. W. 2003. Argument structure: Grammar in use. In Du Bois, J. W., Kumpf, L. E., and Ashby, W. J., eds., Studies in Discourse and Grammar. Vol. 14: Preferred Argument Structure: Grammar as Architecture for Function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 11–60.Google Scholar

Eberhard, K. M., Cutting, J. C., and Bock, K. 2005. Making syntax of sense: Number agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review, 112(3), 531.Google Scholar

Elman, J. L., Hare, M., and McRae, K. 2004. Cues, constraints, and competition in sentence processing. In Tomasello, M. and Slobin, D. I., eds., Beyond Nature– Nurture: Essays in Honor of Elizabeth Bates. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 111–138.Google Scholar

Engbert, R., Longtin, A., and Kliegl, R. 2002. A dynamical model of saccade generation in reading based on spatially distributed lexical processing. Vision Research, 42(5), 621–636.Google Scholar

Engbert, R., Nuthmann, A., Richter, E. M., and Kliegl, R. 2005. SWIFT: A dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. Psychological Review, 112(4), 777–813.Google Scholar

Engelmann, F. 2016. Toward an Integrated Model of Sentence Processing in Reading. Doctoral thesis, Universität Potsdam, Germany.Google Scholar

Engelmann, F., Jäger, L. A., and Vasishth, S. 2020. The effect of prominence and cue association in retrieval processes: A computational account. Cognitive Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12800.Google Scholar

Engelmann, F., and Vasishth, S. 2009. Processing grammatical and ungrammatical center embeddings in English and German: A computational model. In Howes, A., Peebles, D., and Cooper, R. P., eds., Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Cognitive Modeling, ICCM. University of Manchester.Google Scholar

Engelmann, F., Vasishth, S., Engbert, R., and Kliegl, R. 2013. A framework for modeling the interaction of syntactic processing and eye movement control. Topics in Cognitive Science, 5(3), 452–474.Google Scholar

Epstein, J. M. 2008. Why model? Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 11(4), 12.Google Scholar

Farrell, S., and Lewandowsky, S. 2018. Computational Modeling of Cognition and Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ferreira, F., Ferraro, V., and Bailey, K. G. D. 2002. Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11–15.Google Scholar

Ferrill, M., Love, T., Walenski, M., and Shapiro, L. P. 2012. The time-course of lexical activation during sentence comprehension in people with aphasia. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 21(2), 179–189.Google Scholar

Francis, W., and Kucera, H. 1982. Frequency Analysis of English Usage: Lexicon and Grammar. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar

Frank, S. 2009. Surprisal-based comparison between a symbolic and a connectionist model of sentence processing. In Taatgen, N. and van Rijn, H., eds., Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Amsterdam, pp. 1139–1144.Google Scholar

Frank, S. L., Trompenaars, T., and Vasishth, S. 2015. Cross-linguistic differences in processing double-embedded relative clauses: Working-memory constraints or language statistics? Cognitive Science, 40(3), 554–578.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Frazier, L. 1979. On Comprehending Sentences: Syntactic Parsing Strategies. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar

Frazier, L. 1985. Syntactic complexity. In Dowty, David R., Kartunnen, Lauri, and Zwicky, Arnold M., eds., Natural Language Parsing: Psychological, Computational, and Theoretical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 129–189.Google Scholar

Frazier, L. 1987a. Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In Coltheart, M., ed., Attention and Performance 12: The Psychology of Reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 559–586.Google Scholar

Frazier, L. 1987b. Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5(4), 519–559.Google Scholar

Frazier, L., and Clifton, C. Jr. 1997. Construal: Overview, motivation, and some new evidence. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26(3), 277–295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Frazier, L., and Rayner, K. 1982. Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14(2), 178–210.Google Scholar

Freedman, L. S., Lowe, D., and Macaskill, P. 1984. Stopping rules for clinical trials incorporating clinical opinion. Biometrics, 40(3), 575–586.Google Scholar

Friedman, J., Hastie, T., and Tibshirani, R. 2001. Springer Series in Statistics. Vol 1: The Elements of Statistical Learning. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Frühwirth-Schnatter, S. 2006. Finite Mixture and Markov Switching Models. New York: Springer Science and Business Media.Google Scholar

Fukumura, K., and van Gompel, R. P. G. 2011. The effect of animacy on the choice of referring expression. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(10), 1472–1504.Google Scholar

Gelman, A., and Carlin, J. 2014. Beyond power calculations assessing Type S (sign) and Type M (magnitude) errors. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(6), 641–651.Google Scholar

Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., Dunson, D. B., Vehtari, A., and Rubin, D. B. 2014. Bayesian Data Analysis, 3rd ed. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC.Google Scholar

Gennari, S. P., and MacDonald, M. C. 2009. Linking production and comprehension processes: The case of relative clauses. Cognition, 111(1), 1–23.Google Scholar

Gernsbacher, M. A., and Hargreaves, D. J. 1988. Accessing sentence participants: The advantage of first mention. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 699–717.Google Scholar

Gibson, E. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68(1), 1–76.Google Scholar

Gibson, E. 2000. The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Marantz, A., Miyashita, Y., and O’Neil, W., eds., Image, Language, Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 95–126.Google Scholar

Gibson, E., Desmet, T., Grodner, D., Watson, D., and Ko, K. 2005. Reading relative clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(2), 313–353.Google Scholar

Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N., Canseco-Gonzales, E., and Hickock, G. 1996. Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism. Cognition, 59, 23–59.Google Scholar

Gibson, E., and Thomas, J. 1997. The complexity of nested structures in English: Evidence for the syntactic prediction locality theory of linguistic complexity. Unpublished manuscript, MIT.Google Scholar

Gibson, E., and Wu, H.-H. I. 2013. Processing Chinese relative clauses in context. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(1–2), 125–155.Google Scholar

Gigley, H. M. 1986. Studies in artificial aphasia: Experiments in processing change. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 22(1), 43–50.Google Scholar

Green, M. J., and Mitchell, D. C. 2006. Absence of real evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(1), 1–17.Google Scholar

Grodner, D., and Gibson, E. 2005. Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input. Cognitive Science, 29(2), 261–290.Google Scholar

Grodzinsky, Y. 1995. A restrictive theory of agrammatic comprehension. Brain and Language, 50(1), 27–51.Google Scholar

Grodzinsky, Y. 2000. The neurology of syntax: Language use without Broca's area. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(1), 1–71.Google Scholar

Grodzinsky, Y. 2006. The language faculty, Broca's region, and the mirror system. Cortex, 42(4), 464–468.Google Scholar

Grosz, B. J., Joshi, A. K., and Weinstein, S. 1995. Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21(2), 203–225.Google Scholar

Haarmann, H. J., Just, M. A., and Carpenter, P. A. 1997. Aphasic sentence comprehension as a resource deficit: A computational approach. Brain and Language, 59(1), 76–120.Google Scholar

Haarmann, H. J., and Kolk, H. H. J. 1991. A computer model of the temporal course of agrammatic sentence understanding: The effects of variation in severity and sentence complexity. Cognitive Science, 15(1), 49–87.Google Scholar

Hagoort, P., Brown, C. M., and Swaab, T. Y. 1996. Lexical-semantic event-related potential effects in patients with left hemisphere lesions and aphasia, and patients with right hemisphere lesions without aphasia. Brain, 119(2), 627–649.Google Scholar

Hale, J. T. 2001. A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. In Proceedings of the 2nd Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Pittsburgh: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 159–166.Google Scholar

Hale, J. T. 2011. What a rational parser would do. Cognitive Science, 35(3), 399–443.Google Scholar

Hammerly, C., Staub, A., and Dillon, B. 2019. The grammaticality asymmetry in agreement attraction reflects response bias: Experimental and modeling evidence. Cognitive Psychology, 110, 70–104.Google Scholar

Hanne, S., Sekerina, I. A., Vasishth, S., Burchert, F., and De Bleser, R. 2011. Chance in agrammatic sentence comprehension: What does it really mean? Evidence from eye movements of German agrammatic aphasics. Aphasiology, 25, 221–244.Google Scholar

Hickok, G., and Avrutin, S. 1995. Representation, referentiality, and processing in agrammatic comprehension: Two case studies. Brain and Language, 50(1), 10–26.Google Scholar

Hoenig, J. M., and Heisey, D. M. 2001. The abuse of power: The pervasive fallacy of power calculations for data analysis. American Statistician, 55(1), 19–24.Google Scholar

Hofmeister, P. 2007. Representational Complexity and Memory Retrieval in Language Comprehension. PhD thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar

Hofmeister, P. 2011. Representational complexity and memory retrieval in language comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(3), 376–405.Google Scholar

Hofmeister, P., and Vasishth, S. 2014. Distinctiveness and encoding effects in online sentence comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–13. Article 1237. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01237.Google Scholar

Hsiao, F., and Gibson, E. 2003. Processing relative clauses in Chinese. Cognition, 90(1), 3–27.Google Scholar

Hsiao, Y., and MacDonald, M. C. 2013. Experience and generalization in a connectionist model of Mandarin Chinese relative clause processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(767). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00767.Google Scholar

Husain, S., Vasishth, S., and Srinivasan, N. 2014. Strong expectations cancel locality effects: Evidence from Hindi. PLoS ONE, 9(7), 1–14.Google Scholar

Husain, S., Vasishth, S., and Srinivasan, N. 2015. Integration and prediction difficulty in Hindi sentence comprehension: Evidence from an eye-tracking corpus. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 8 (2), 1–12.Google Scholar

Inhoff, A. W., and Weger, U. W. 2005. Memory for word location during reading: Eye movements to previously read words are spatially selective but not precise. Memory and Cognition, 33(3), 447–461.Google Scholar

Jäger, L. A., Chen, Z., Li, Q., Lin, C. J. C., and Vasishth, S. 2015. The subject-relative advantage in Chinese: Evidence for expectation-based processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 79, 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jäger, L. A., Engelmann, F., and Vasishth, S. 2015. Retrieval interference in reflexive processing: Experimental evidence from Mandarin, and computational modeling. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(617). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00617.Google Scholar

Jäger, L. A., Engelmann, F., and Vasishth, S. 2017. Similarity-based interference in sentence comprehension: Literature review and Bayesian meta-analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 316–339.Google Scholar

Jäger, L. A., Mertzen, D., Van Dyke, J. A., and Vasishth, S. 2020. Interference patterns in subject-verb agreement and reflexives revisited: A large-sample study. Journal of Memory and Language, 111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104063.Google Scholar

Jurafsky, D. 1996. A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science, 20, 137–194.Google Scholar

Just, M. A., and Carpenter, P. A. 1980. A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87(4), 329–354.Google Scholar

Just, M. A., and Carpenter, P. A. 1992. A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99(1), 122–149.Google Scholar

Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., and Varma, S. 1999. Computational modeling of high-level cognition and brain function. Human Brain Mapping, 8, 128–136.Google Scholar

Just, M. A., and Varma, S. 2002. A hybrid architecture for working memory: Reply to MacDonald and Christiansen (2002). Psychological Review, 109(1), 55–65.Google Scholar

Just, Marcel Adam, and Varma, Sashank. 2007. The organization of thinking: What functional brain imaging reveals about the neuroarchitecture of complex cognition. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(3), 153–191.Google Scholar

Keenan, E. L., and Comrie, B. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(1), 63–99.Google Scholar

Kempen, G., and Vosse, T. 1989. Incremental syntactic tree formation in human sentence processing: A cognitive architecture based on activation decay and simulated annealing. Connection Science, 1(3), 273–290.Google Scholar

Kemper, S., Crow, A., and Kemtes, K. 2004. Eye fixation patterns of high and low span young and older adults: Down the garden path and back again. Psychology and Aging, 19, 157–170.Google Scholar

Keppel, G., and Underwood, B. J. 1962. Proactive inhibition in short-term retention of single items. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1, 153–161.Google Scholar

Kidd, E., Donnelly, S., and Christiansen, M. H. 2018. Individual differences in language acquisition and processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(2), 154–169.Google Scholar

King, J., and Just, M. A. 1991. Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(5), 580–602.Google Scholar

Kliegl, R., Grabner, E., Rolfs, M., and Engbert, R. 2004. Length, frequency, and predictability effects of words on eye movements in reading. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16(1), 262–284.Google Scholar

Kolk, H. H. J., and Van Grunsven, M. M. F. 1985. Agrammatism as a variable phenomenon. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 2(4), 347–384.Google Scholar

Konieczny, L. 2000. Locality and parsing complexity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(6), 627–645.Google Scholar

Konieczny, L., and Döring, P. 2003. Anticipation of clause-final heads: Evidence from eye-tracking and SRNs. In Slezak, P. P., ed., Proceedings of the ICCS/ASCS Joint International Conference on Cognitive Science. Sydney: University of New South Wales, pp. 330–335.Google Scholar

Kruschke, J. 2014. Doing Bayesian Data Analysis: A Tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Kush, D., and Phillips, C. 2014. Local anaphor licensing in an SOV language: Implications for retrieval strategies. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(1252). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01252.Google Scholar

Kwon, N., Gordon, P. C., Lee, Y., Kluender, R., and Polinsky, M. 2010. Cognitive and linguistic factors affecting subject/object asymmetry: An eye-tracking study of prenominal relative clauses in Korean. Language, 86(3), 546–582.Google Scholar

Lago, S., Shalom, D. E., Sigman, M., Lau, E. F., and Phillips, C. 2015. Agreement attraction in Spanish comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 82, 133–149.Google Scholar

Laird, J. E. 2012. The Soar Cognitive Architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites, Vol. 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Lee, J., and Thompson, C. K. 2011a. Real-time production of arguments and adjuncts in normal and agrammatic speakers. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(8), 985–1021.Google Scholar

Lee, J., and Thompson, C. K. 2011b. Real-time production of unergative and unaccusative sentences in normal and agrammatic speakers: An eyetracking study. Aphasiology, 25(6–7), 813–825.Google Scholar

Lee, M. D., and Wagenmakers, E.-J. 2014. Bayesian Cognitive Modeling: A Practical Course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Legge, G. E., Hooven, T. A., Klitz, T. S., Mansfield, S. J., and Tjan, B. S. 2002. Mr. Chips 2002: New insights from an ideal-observer model of reading. Vision Research, 42(18), 2219–2234.Google Scholar

Levy, R. 2008. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106, 1126–1177.Google Scholar

Levy, R., Fedorenko, E., Breen, M., and Gibson, E. 2012. The processing of extraposed structures in English. Cognition, 122(1), 12–36.Google Scholar

Levy, R., Fedorenko, E., and Gibson, E. 2013. The syntactic complexity of Russian relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(4), 461–495.Google Scholar

Levy, R., and Keller, F. 2013. Expectation and locality effects in German verb-final structures. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(2), 199–222.Google Scholar

Lewandowsky, S., Geiger, S. M., and Oberauer, K. 2008. Interference-based forgetting in verbal short-term memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 200–222.Google Scholar

Lewis, R. L. 1993. An Architecturally-Based Theory of Human Sentence Comprehension. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar

Lewis, R. L. 1996. Interference in short-term memory: The magical number two (or three) in sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 93–115.Google Scholar

Lewis, R. L. 2000. Cognitive modeling, symbolic. In Wilson, R. and Keil, F., eds., The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Lewis, R. L., and Vasishth, S. 2005. An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29(3), 375–419.Google Scholar

Lewis, R. L., Vasishth, S., and Van Dyke, J. A. 2006. Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(10), 447–454.Google Scholar

Lin, C.-J. C., and Bever, T. G. 2006. Subject preference in the processing of relative clauses in Chinese. In Baumer, D., Montero, D., and Scanlon, M., eds., Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 254–260.Google Scholar

Linzen, T., and Jaeger, T. F. 2016. Uncertainty and expectation in sentence processing: Evidence from subcategorization distributions. Cognitive Science, 40, 1382–1411.Google Scholar

Linzen, T., and Leonard, B. 2018. Distinct patterns of syntactic agreement errors in recurrent networks and humans. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.06882.Google Scholar

Lissón, Paula, van het Nederend, Mick, Nicenboim, Bruno, Paape, Dario, Pregla, Dorothea, Burchert, Frank, Stadie, Nicole, Caplan, David, and Vasishth, Shravan. 2021. A computational evaluation of two models of retrieval processes in sentence processing: The case of aphasia. Cognitive Science. Accepted pending minor revisions.Google Scholar

Logačev, P., and Vasishth, S. 2015. A multiple-channel model of task-dependent ambiguity resolution in sentence comprehension. Cognitive Science, 40, 266–298.Google Scholar

Logačev, P., and Vasishth, S. 2016. Understanding underspecification: A comparison of two computational implementations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(5), 996–1012.Google Scholar

Love, T., Swinney, D., Walenski, M., and Zurif, E. 2008. How left inferior frontal cortex participates in syntactic processing: Evidence from aphasia. Brain and Language, 107(3), 203–219.Google Scholar

Love, T., Swinney, D., and Zurif, E. B. 2001. Aphasia and the time-course of processing long-distance dependencies. Brain and Language, 79, 169–170.Google Scholar

Lovett, M. C., Reder, L. M., and Lebiere, C. 1999. Modeling working memory in a unified architecture. In Miyake, A. and Shah, P., eds., Models of Working Memory: Mechanisms of Active Maintenance and Executive Control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 135–182.Google Scholar

Lunn, D., Jackson, C., Spiegelhalter, D. J., Best, N., and Thomas, A. 2012. The BUGS Book: A Practical Introduction to Bayesian Analysis. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

MacDonald, M. C., and Christiansen, M. H. 2002. Reassessing working memory: Comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996). Psychological Review, 109(1), 35–54.Google Scholar

MacDonald, Maryellen C., Just, Marcel Adam, and Carpenter, Patricia A. 1992. Working memory constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity. Cognitive Psychology, 24(1), 56–98.Google Scholar

Mätzig, P., Vasishth, S., Engelmann, F., Caplan, D., and Burchert, F. 2018. A computational investigation of sources of variability in sentence comprehension difficulty in aphasia. Topics in Cognitive Science, 10(1), 161–174.Google Scholar

Mauner, G., Fromkin, V. A., and Cornell, T. L. 1993. Comprehension and acceptability judgments in agrammatism: Disruptions in the syntax of referential dependency. Brain and Language, 45(3), 340–370.Google Scholar

McElree, B. 1993. The locus of lexical preference effects in sentence comprehension: A time-course analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(4), 536–571.Google Scholar

McElree, B. 2000. Sentence comprehension is mediated by content-addressable memory structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(2), 111–123.Google Scholar

McElree, B. 2006. Accessing recent events. In Ross, B. H., ed., The Psychology of Learning and Motivation. Vol. 46: Advances in Research and Theory. San Diego, CA: Elsevier, pp. 155–200.Google Scholar

McElree, B., Foraker, S., and Dyer, L. 2003. Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 67–91.Google Scholar

McLachlan, G., and Peel, D. 2004. Finite mixture models. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar

McRae, K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., and Tanenhaus, M. K. 1998. Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on-line sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 283–312.Google Scholar

Mertzen, Daniela, Dillon, Brian W., Engbert, Ralf, and Vasishth, Shravan. 2020a. A cross-linguistic investigation of retroactive similarity-based interference in sentence comprehension. Technical report.Google Scholar

Mertzen, Daniela, Dillon, Brian W., Engbert, Ralf, and Vasishth, Shravan. 2020b. An investigation of proactive and retroactive interference in sentence comprehension. Technical report.Google Scholar

Mertzen, Daniela, Laurinavichyute, Anna, Dillon, Brian W., Engbert, Ralf, and Vasishth, Shravan. 2020c. A cross-linguistic investigation of proactive, similarity-based retrieval interference in sentence comprehension: No support from English, German and Russian eye-tracking data. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar

Meseguer, E., Carreiras, M., and Clifton, C. Jr.. 2002. Overt reanalysis strategies and eye movements during the reading of mild garden path sentences. Memory and Cognition, 30(4), 551–561.Google Scholar

Meyer, A. M., Mack, J. E., and Thompson, C. K. 2012. Tracking passive sentence comprehension in agrammatic aphasia. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 25(1), 31–43.Google Scholar

Miller, G. A. 1956. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81.Google Scholar

Miller, G. A., and Chomsky, N. 1963. Finitary models of language users. In Luce, R. D., Bush, R. R., and Galanter, E., eds., Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 2. New York: John Wiley, pp. 419–492.Google Scholar

Mitchell, D. C., Cuetos, F., CorleyM. M. B., , and Brysbaert, M. 1995. Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (non-lexical) statistical records. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 469–488.Google Scholar

Mitchell, D. C., Shen, X., Green, M. J., and Hodgson, T. L. 2008. Accounting for regressive eye-movements in models of sentence processing: A reappraisal of the selective reanalysis hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(3), 266–293.Google Scholar

Miyake, A., Carpenter, P. A., and Just, M. A. 1994. A capacity approach to syntactic comprehension disorders: Making normal adults perform like aphasic patients. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 11(6), 671–717.Google Scholar

Nairne, J. S. 1988. A framework for interpreting recency effects in immediate serial recall. Memory and Cognition, 16(4), 343–352.Google Scholar

Nairne, J. S. 1990. A feature model of immediate memory. Memory and Cognition, 18(3), 251–269.Google Scholar

Newell, A. 1973. Production systems: Models of control structures. Technical report, DTIC.Google Scholar

Newell, A. 1978. Harpy, production systems and human cognition. Technical report, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar

Nicenboim, B., Logačev, P., Gattei, C., and Vasishth, S. 2016. When high-capacity readers slow down and low-capacity readers speed up: Working memory differences in unbounded dependencies. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 280. Special Issue on Encoding and Navigating Linguistic Representations in Memory.Google Scholar

Nicenboim, B., and Vasishth, S. 2016. Statistical methods for linguistic research: Foundational Ideas – Part II. Language and Linguistics Compass, 10, 591–613.Google Scholar

Nicenboim, B., and Vasishth, S. 2018. Models of retrieval in sentence comprehension: A computational evaluation using Bayesian hierarchical modeling. Journal of Memory and Language, 99, 1–34.Google Scholar

Nicenboim, B., Vasishth, S., Engelmann, F., and Suckow, K. 2018. Exploratory and confirmatory analyses in sentence processing: A case study of number interference in German. Cognitive Science, 42, 1075–1100.Google Scholar

Nicenboim, B., Vasishth, S., and Rösler, F. 2020. Are words pre-activated probabilistically during sentence comprehension? Evidence from new data and a Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis using publicly available data. Neuropsychologia. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2020.107427.Google Scholar

Nicenboim, Bruno, Schad, Daniel, and Vasishth, Shravan. 2021. Introduction to Bayesian Data Analysis for Cognitive Science. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Under contract with Chapman and Hall/CRC Statistics in the Social and Behavioral Sciences Series.Google Scholar

Nicol, J. 1988. Coreference Processing during Sentence Comprehension. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Nilsson, M., and Nivre, J. 2010. Towards a data-driven model of eye movement control in reading. In Hale, J. T., ed., Proceedings of the 2010 Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics, ACL 2010. Uppsala, Sweden: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 63–71.Google Scholar

Novick, J. M., Trueswell, J. C., and Thompson-Schill, S. L. 2005. Cognitive control and parsing: Reexamining the role of Broca⣙s area in sentence comprehension. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 5(3), 263–281.Google Scholar

Oakley, J. E., and O’Hagan, A. 2010. SHELF: The Sheffield Elicitation Framework (Version 2.0). School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sheffield.Google Scholar

Oberauer, K., and Kliegl, R. 2006. A formal model of capacity limits in working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 601–626.Google Scholar

Oberauer, K., and Lewandowsky, S. 2013. Evidence against decay in verbal working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(2), 380.Google Scholar

Oberauer, Klaus, and Lewandowsky, Stephan. 2014. Further evidence against decay in working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 73(1), 15–30.Google Scholar

O’Hagan, A., Buck, C. E., Daneshkhah, A., Eiser, J. R., Garthwaite, P. H., Jenkinson, D. J., Oakley, J. E., and Rakow, T. 2006. Uncertain Judgements: Eliciting Experts’ Probabilities. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar

Paape, Dario, Avetisyan, Serine, Lago, Sol, and Vasishth, Shravan. 2020. Modeling misretrieval and feature substitution in agreement attraction: A computational evaluation. Unpublished manuscript. https://psyarxiv.com/957e3/.Google Scholar

Palestro, J. J., Sederberg, P. B., Osth, A. F, Van Zandt, T., and Turner, B. M. 2018. Likelihood-Free Methods for Cognitive Science. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar

Parker, D. 2019. Cue combinatorics in memory retrieval for anaphora. Cognitive Science, 43(3), e12715. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12715.Google Scholar

Parker, D., and Phillips, C. 2014. Selective priority for structure in memory retrieval. Proceedings of the 27th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. Columbus: Ohio State University, p. 100.Google Scholar

Parker, D., and Phillips, C. 2017. Reflexive attraction in comprehension is selective. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 272–290.Google Scholar

Parker, D., Shvartsman, M., and Van Dyke, J. A. 2017. The cue-based retrieval theory of sentence comprehension: New findings and new challenges. In Escobar, L., Torrens, V., and Parodi, T., eds., Language Processing and Disorders. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 121–144.Google Scholar

Patil, U., Hanne, S., Burchert, F., De Bleser, R., and Vasishth, S. 2016a. A computational evaluation of sentence comprehension deficits in aphasia. Cognitive Science, 40, 5–50.Google Scholar

Patil, U., Vasishth, S., and Kliegl, R. 2009. Compound effect of probabilistic disambiguation and memory retrievals on sentence processing: Evidence from an eye-tracking corpus. In Howes, A., Peebles, D., and Cooper, R. P., eds., Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Cognitive Modeling. University of Manchester.Google Scholar

Patil, U., Vasishth, S., and Lewis, R. L. 2012. Retrieval interference in syntactic processing: The case of reflexive binding in English. Manuscript submitted.Google Scholar

Patil, U., Vasishth, S., and Lewis, R. L. 2016b. Retrieval interference in syntactic processing: The case of reflexive binding in English. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 329. Special Issue on Encoding and Navigating Linguistic Representations in Memory.Google Scholar

Patson, N. D., and Husband, E. M. 2016. Misinterpretations in agreement and agreement attraction. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(5), 950–971.Google Scholar

Pearlmutter, N. J., Garnsey, S. M., and Bock, K. 1999. Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 427–456.Google Scholar

Peterson, L. R., and Peterson, M. J. 1959. Short-term retention of individual items. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 12–21.Google Scholar

Pickering, M. J., and Van Gompel, R. P. G. 2006. Syntactic parsing. In Traxler, M. J. and Gernsbacher, M. A., eds., Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 2nd ed. New York: Academic Press, pp. 455–503.Google Scholar

Platt, John R. 1964. Strong inference. Science, 146(3642), 347–353.Google Scholar

Prather, P. A., Zurif, E., Love, T., and Brownell, H. 1997. Speed of lexical activation in nonfluent Broca's aphasia and fluent Wernicke's aphasia. Brain and Language, 59(3), 391–411.Google Scholar

Pregla, Dorothea, Lissón, Paula, Vasishth, Shravan, Burchert, Frank, and Stadie, Nicole. 2020a. Variability in sentence comprehension in aphasia in German. Brain and Language. Under review.Google Scholar

Pregla, Dorothea, Lissón, Paula, Vasishth, Shravan, Stadie, Nicole, and Burchert, Frank. 2020b. Individual differences in visual world eye-tracking in aphasia in German. Technical report.Google Scholar

R Core Team. 2012. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar

R Core Team. 2016. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar

Raab, D. H. 1962. Statistical facilitation of simple reaction times. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, 24(5 Series II), 574–590.Google Scholar

Rabe, Maximilian M., Chandra, Johan, Krügel, André, Seelig, Stefan A., Vasishth, Shravan, and Engbert, Ralf. 2020. A Bayesian approach to dynamical modeling of eye-movement control in reading of normal, mirrored, and scrambled texts. Psychological Review. In press.Google Scholar

Rabovsky, M., and McRae, K. 2014. Simulating the N400 ERP component as semantic network error: Insights from a feature-based connectionist attractor model of word meaning. Cognition, 132(1), 68–89.Google Scholar

Rasmussen, N. E., and Schuler, W. 2017. Left-corner parsing with distributed associative memory produces surprisal and locality effects. Cognitive Science, 42(S4), 1009–1042. Special Issue in Sentence Processing.Google Scholar

Ratcliff, R. 1978. A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85(2), 59.Google Scholar

Rayner, K., Kambe, G., and Duffy, S. A. 2000. The effect of clause wrap-up on eye movements during reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A(4), 1061–80.Google Scholar

Reichle, E. D., Pollatsek, A., Fisher, D. L., and Rayner, K. 1998. Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. Psychological Review, 105(1), 125–157.Google Scholar

Reichle, E. D., Pollatsek, A., and Rayner, K. 2006. E-Z Reader: A cognitive-control, serial-attention model of eye-movement behavior during reading. Cognitive Systems Research, 7(1), 4–22.Google Scholar

Reichle, E. D., Rayner, K., and Pollatsek, A. 2003. The E-Z reader model of eye-movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26(4), 445–476.Google Scholar

Reichle, E. D., Warren, T., and McConnell, K. 2009. Using E-Z Reader to model the effects of higher-level language processing on eye movements during reading. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 16(1), 1–21.Google Scholar

Reilly, R. G., and Radach, R. 2006. Some empirical tests of an interactive activation model of eye movement control in reading. Cognitive Systems Research, 7(1), 34–55.Google Scholar

Rescorla, R. A., and Wagner, A. R. 1972. A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In Black, A. H. and Prokasy, W. F., eds., Classical Conditioning II: Current Research and Theory, Vol. 2. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, pp. 64–99.Google Scholar

Resnik, P. 1992. Left–corner parsing and psychological plausibility. In Proceedings of COLING, pp. 191–197.Google Scholar

Richter, E. M., Engbert, R., and Kliegl, R. 2006. Current advances in SWIFT. Cognitive Systems Research, 7, 23–33.Google Scholar

Roberts, S., and Pashler, H. 2000. How persuasive is a good fit? A comment on theory testing. Psychological Review, 107(2), 358–367.Google Scholar

Safavi, M. S., Husain, S., and Vasishth, S. 2016. Dependency resolution difficulty increases with distance in Persian separable complex predicates: Implications for expectation and memory-based accounts. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 403.Google Scholar

Salvucci, D. 2001. An integrated model of eye movements and visual encoding. Cognitive Systems Research, 1(4), 201–220.Google Scholar

Sanford, A. J., and Sturt, P. 2002. Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(9), 382–386.Google Scholar

Schad, D. J., Betancourt, M., and Vasishth, S. 2020a. Towards a principled Bayesian workflow: A tutorial for cognitive science. Psychological Methods, 26(1), 103–126.Google Scholar

Schad, D. J., Hohenstein, S., Vasishth, S., and Kliegl, R. 2020b. How to capitalize on a priori contrasts in linear (mixed) models: A tutorial. Journal of Memory and Language, 110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104038.Google Scholar

Schilling, H. E. H., Rayner, K., and Chumbley, J. I. 1998. Comparing naming, lexical decision, and eye fixation times: Word frequency effects and individual differences. Memory and Cognition, 26(6), 1270–1281.Google Scholar

Schneider, D. W., and Anderson, J. R. 2012. Modeling fan effects on the time course of associative recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 64(3), 127–160.Google Scholar

Schriefers, H., Friederici, A. D., and Kuhn, K. 1995. The processing of locally ambiguous relative clauses in German. Journal of Memory and Language, 34(4), 499–520.Google Scholar

Schwartz, M. F., Saffran, E. M., and Marin, O. S. M. 1980. The word order problem in agrammatism: I. Comprehension. Brain and Language, 10(2), 249–262.Google Scholar

Sisson, S. A., Fan, Y., and Beaumont, M. A. 2019. Handbook of Approximate Bayesian Computation. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC.Google Scholar

Smaldino, P. E. 2017. Models are stupid, and we need more of them. In Vallacher, Robin R., Read, Stephen J., and Nowak, Andrzej, eds., Computational Social Psychology. Routledge, pp. 311–331.Google Scholar

Smith, G., Franck, J., and Tabor, W. 2018. A self-organizing approach to subject-verb number agreement. Cognitive Science, 42(4)Suppl, 1043–1074.Google Scholar

Smith, G., and Vasishth, S. 2020. A principled approach to feature selection in models of sentence processing. Cognitive Science, 44(12). https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12918.Google Scholar

Spiegelhalter, D. J., Abrams, K. R., and Myles, J. P. 2004. Statistics in Practice. Vol. 13: Bayesian Approaches to Clinical Trials and Health-Care Evaluation. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar

Spiegelhalter, D. J., Freedman, L. S., and Parmar, M. K. B. 1994. Bayesian approaches to randomized trials. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society), 157(3), 357–387.Google Scholar

Spivey, M. J., and Tanenhaus, M. K. 1998. Syntactic ambiguity resolution in discourse: Modeling the effects of referential context and lexical frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24(6), 1521–1543.Google Scholar

Stack, C. M. H., James, A. N., and Watson, D. G. 2018. A failure to replicate rapid syntactic adaptation in comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 46(6), 864–877.Google Scholar

Staub, A. 2010. Eye movements and processing difficulty in object relative clauses. Cognition, 116(1), 71–86.Google Scholar

Sternberg, S. 1966. High-speed scanning in human memory. Science, 153(3736), 652–654.Google Scholar

Sternberg, S. 1969. Memory-scanning: Mental processes revealed by reaction-time experiments. American Scientist, 57, 421–457.Google Scholar

Sturt, P. 2003. The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(3), 542–562.Google Scholar

Swaab, T. Y., Brown, C. M., and Hagoort, P. 1997. Spoken sentence comprehension in aphasia: Event-related potential evidence for a lexical integration deficit. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 39–66.Google Scholar

Swets, B., Desmet, T., Clifton, C. Jr., and Ferreira, F. 2008. Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading. Memory and Cognition, 36(1), 201–216.Google Scholar

Swinney, D., Zurif, E. B., Prather, P., and Love, T. 1996. Neurological distribution of processing operations underlying language comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 174–184.Google Scholar

Tabor, W., Galantucci, B., and Richardson, D. 2004. Effects of merely local syntactic coherence on sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 355–370.Google Scholar

Thompson, C. K., and Choy, J. 2009. Pronominal resolution and gap filling in agrammatic aphasia: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 38(3), 255–283.Google Scholar

Thompson, C. K., Dickey, M. W., and Choy, J. J. 2004. Complexity in the comprehension of wh-movement structures in agrammatic Broca's aphasia: Evidence from eyetracking. Brain and Language, 91(1), 124–125.Google Scholar

Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Account of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Traxler, M. J. 2007. Working memory contributions to relative clause attachment processing: A hierarchical linear modeling analysis. Memory and Cognition, 35(5), 1107–1121.Google Scholar

Traxler, M. J. 2014. Trends in syntactic parsing: Anticipation, Bayesian estimation, and good-enough parsing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(11), 605–611.Google Scholar

Traxler, M. J., Morris, R. K., and Seely, R. E. 2002. Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 47(1), 69–90.Google Scholar

Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., and Clifton, C. Jr. 1998. Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(4), 558–592.Google Scholar

Tucker, M. A., Idrissi, A., and Almeida, D. 2015. Representing number in the real-time processing of agreement: Self-paced reading evidence from Arabic. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(347). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00347.Google Scholar

Van Dyke, J. A. 2007. Interference effects from grammatically unavailable constituents during sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(2), 407–430.Google Scholar

Van Dyke, J. A., and Lewis, R. L. 2003. Distinguishing effects of structure and decay on attachment and repair: A cue-based parsing account of recovery from misanalyzed ambiguities. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(3), 285–316.Google Scholar

Van Dyke, J. A., and McElree, B. 2006. Retrieval interference in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(2), 157–166.Google Scholar

Van Dyke, J. A., and McElree, B. 2011. Cue-dependent interference in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 65(3), 247–263.Google Scholar

Van Dyke, J. A., Johns, C. L., and Kukona, A. 2014. Low working memory capacity is only spuriously related to poor reading comprehension. Cognition, 131(3), 373–403.Google Scholar

van Rij, J., van Rijn, H., and Hendriks, P. 2013. How WM load influences linguistic processing in adults: A computational model of pronoun interpretation in discourse. Topics in Cognitive Science, 5(3), 564–580.Google Scholar

Varma, S. 2016. The CAPS Family of Cognitive Architectures. In Chipman, S. E. F., (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Science. New York: Oxford University Press, p. 49.Google Scholar

Vasishth, S. 2015. A Meta-analysis of Relative Clause Processing in Mandarin Chinese Using Bias Modelling. MSc thesis, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sheffield, UK.Google Scholar

Vasishth, S. 2020. Using Approximate Bayesian Computation for estimating parameters in the cue-based retrieval model of sentence processing. MethodsX. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2020.100850.Google Scholar

Vasishth, S., Bruessow, S., Lewis, R. L., and Drenhaus, H. 2008. Processing polarity: How the ungrammatical intrudes on the grammatical. Cognitive Science, 32(4), 685–712.Google Scholar

Vasishth, S., Chen, Z., Li, Q., and Guo, G. 2013. Processing Chinese relative clauses: Evidence for the subject-relative advantage. PLoS ONE, 8(10), e77006. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077006.Google Scholar

Vasishth, S., Chopin, N., Ryder, R., and Nicenboim, B. 2017b. Modelling dependency completion in sentence comprehension as a Bayesian hierarchical mixture process: A case study involving Chinese relative clauses. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Conference, London.Google Scholar

Vasishth, S., and Drenhaus, H. 2011. Locality in German. Dialogue and Discourse, 2(1), 59–82.Google Scholar

Vasishth, S., and Gelman, A. 2019. How to embrace variation and accept uncertainty in linguistic and psycholinguistic data analysis. Submitted.Google Scholar

Vasishth, S., Jäger, L. A., and Nicenboim, B. 2017a. Feature overwriting as a finite mixture process: Evidence from comprehension data. In van Vugt, M. K., Banks, A., and Kennedy, W., eds., Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Cognitive Modeling. Coventry: University of Warwick.Google Scholar

Vasishth, S., and Lewis, R. L. 2006. Argument-head distance and processing complexity: Explaining both locality and antilocality effects. Language, 82(4), 767–794.Google Scholar

Vasishth, S., Mertzen, D., Jäger, L. A., and Gelman, A. 2018. The statistical significance filter leads to overoptimistic expectations of replicability. Journal of Memory and Language, 103, 151–175.Google Scholar

Vasishth, S., Nicenboim, B., Engelmann, F., and Burchert, F. 2019. Computational models of retrieval processes in sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23, 968–982.Google Scholar

Vasishth, S., Suckow, K., Lewis, R. L., and Kern, S. 2010. Short-term forgetting in sentence comprehension: Crosslinguistic evidence from head-final structures. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(4), 533–567.Google Scholar

Vehtari, A., Gelman, A., and Gabry, J. 2017. Practical Bayesian model evaluation using leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC. Statistics and Computing, 27(5), 1413–1432.Google Scholar

Vehtari, A., Ojanen, J., et al. 2012. A survey of Bayesian predictive methods for model assessment, selection and comparison. Statistics Surveys, 6, 142–228.Google Scholar

Villata, S., and Franck, J. 2016. Similarity-based interference in agreement comprehension and production: Evidence from object agreement. Manuscript.Google Scholar

von der Malsburg, T., Kliegl, R., and Vasishth, S. 2015. Determinants of scanpath regularity in reading. Cognitive Science, 39(7), 1675–1703.Google Scholar

von der Malsburg, T., and Vasishth, S. 2011. What is the scanpath signature of syntactic reanalysis? Journal of Memory and Language, 65(2), 109–127.Google Scholar

von der Malsburg, T., and Vasishth, S. 2013. Scanpaths reveal syntactic underspecification and reanalysis strategies. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(10), 1545–1578.Google Scholar

Vosse, T., and Kempen, G. A. M. 2000. Syntactic structure assembly in human parsing: A computational model based on competitive inhibition and lexicalist grammar. Cognition, 75, 105–143.Google Scholar

Wagers, M. W., Lau, E. F., and Phillips, C. 2009. Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(2), 206–237.Google Scholar

Warren, T., and McConnell, K. 2007. Investigating effects of selectional restriction violations and plausibility violation severity on eye-movements in reading. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14(4), 770–775.Google Scholar

Warren, T. C., and Gibson, E. 2005. Effects of NP-type on reading English clefts. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20(6), 751–767.Google Scholar

Wasserstein, R. L., and Lazar, N. A. 2016. The ASA's Statement on p-Values: context, process, and purpose. American Statistician, 70(2), 129–133.Google Scholar

Watkins, O. C., and Watkins, M. J. 1975. Buildup of proactive inhibition as a cueoverload effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 104(4), 442–452.Google Scholar

Waugh, N. C., and Norman, D. A. 1965. Primary memory. Psychological Review, 72, 89–104.Google Scholar

Weger, U. W., and Inhoff, A. W. 2007. Long-range regressions to previously read words are guided by spatial and verbal memory. Memory and Cognition, 35(6), 1293–1306.Google Scholar

Wells, J. B., Christiansen, M. H., Race, D. S., Acheson, D. J., and MacDonald, M. C. 2009. Experience and sentence processing: Statistical learning and relative clause comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 250–271.Google Scholar

Wu, F., Kaiser, E., and Vasishth, S. 2017. Effects of early cues on the processing of Chinese relative clauses: Evidence for experience-based theories. Cognitive Science, 42, 1101–1133.Google Scholar

Yadav, Himanshu, Smith, Garrett, Paape, Dario, and Vasishth, Shravan. 2020. Modeling individual differences in sentence comprehension. In Proceedings of the Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing Conference, Potsdam, Germany.Google Scholar

Yee, E., Blumstein, S. E., and Sedivy, J. C. 2008. Lexical-semantic activation in Broca's and Wernicke's aphasia: evidence from eye movements. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(4), 592–612.Google Scholar

Yngve, V. H. 1960. A model and an hypothesis for language structure. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 104, 444–466.Google Scholar

Zurif, E. B., Swinney, D., Prather, P., and Love, T. 1994. Functional localization in the brain with respect to syntactic processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 487–497.Google Scholar