Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768ffcd9cc-x2fkq Total loading time: 1.39 Render date: 2022-12-01T15:09:33.630Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Forward modelling requires intention recognition and non-impoverished predictions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2013

Jan P. de Ruiter
Affiliation:
Department of Psycholinguistics, Bielefeld University, 33501 Bielefeld, Germany. jan.deruiter@uni-bielefeld.dehttp://www.uni-bielefeld.de/lili/personen/jruiter/chris.cummins@uni-bielefeld.de
Chris Cummins
Affiliation:
Department of Psycholinguistics, Bielefeld University, 33501 Bielefeld, Germany. jan.deruiter@uni-bielefeld.dehttp://www.uni-bielefeld.de/lili/personen/jruiter/chris.cummins@uni-bielefeld.de

Abstract

We encourage Pickering & Garrod (P&G) to implement this promising theory in a computational model. The proposed theory crucially relies on having an efficient and reliable mechanism for early intention recognition. Furthermore, the generation of impoverished predictions is incompatible with a number of key phenomena that motivated P&G's theory. Explaining these phenomena requires fully specified perceptual predictions in both comprehension and production.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

De Ruiter, J. P. & Cummins, C. (2012) A model of intentional communication: AIRBUS (Asymmetric Intention Recognition with Bayesian Updating of Signals) . In: Proceedings of SemDial 2012, ed. Brown-Schmidt, S., Ginzburg, J. & Larsson, S., pp. 149–50.Google Scholar
De Ruiter, J. P., Mitterer, H. & Enfield, N. J. (2006) Predicting the end of a speaker's turn; a cognitive cornerstone of conversation. Language 82(3):515–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dell, G. S. (1986) A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review 93:283321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeVault, D., Sagae, K. & Traum, D. (2011) Incremental interpretation and prediction of utterance meaning for interactive dialogue. Dialogue and Discourse 2(1):143–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinks-Maldonado, T. H., Nagarajan, S. S. & Houde, J. F. (2006) Magnetoencephalographic evidence for a precise forward model in speech production. NeuroReport 17(13):1375–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1995) Interaction biases in human thinking. In: Social intelligence and interaction, ed. Goody, E. N., pp. 221–60. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magyari, L. & De Ruiter, J. P. (2012) Prediction of turn-ends based on anticipation of upcoming words. Frontiers in Psychology 3:376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1973) Linguistic structure and speech shadowing at very short latencies. Nature 244:522–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pickering, M. J. & Garrod, S. (2007) Do people use language production to make predictions during comprehension? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11(3): 105–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., Hoymann, G., Rossano, F., De Ruiter, J. P., Yoon, K. E., & Levinson, S. C. (2009) Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106(26):10587–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tourville, J. A., Reily, K. J. & Guenther, F. K. (2008) Neural mechanisms underlying auditory feedback control of speech. NeuroImage 39:1429–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Forward modelling requires intention recognition and non-impoverished predictions
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Forward modelling requires intention recognition and non-impoverished predictions
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Forward modelling requires intention recognition and non-impoverished predictions
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *