↓ Skip to main content

Semantic and Syntactic Interference in Sentence Comprehension: A Comparison of Working Memory Models

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Semantic and Syntactic Interference in Sentence Comprehension: A Comparison of Working Memory Models
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00198
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yingying Tan, Randi C. Martin, Julie A. Van Dyke

Abstract

This study investigated the nature of the underlying working memory system supporting sentence processing through examining individual differences in sensitivity to retrieval interference effects during sentence comprehension. Interference effects occur when readers incorrectly retrieve sentence constituents which are similar to those required during integrative processes. We examined interference arising from a partial match between distracting constituents and syntactic and semantic cues, and related these interference effects to performance on working memory, short-term memory (STM), vocabulary, and executive function tasks. For online sentence comprehension, as measured by self-paced reading, the magnitude of individuals' syntactic interference effects was predicted by general WM capacity and the relation remained significant when partialling out vocabulary, indicating that the effects were not due to verbal knowledge. For offline sentence comprehension, as measured by responses to comprehension questions, both general WM capacity and vocabulary knowledge interacted with semantic interference for comprehension accuracy, suggesting that both general WM capacity and the quality of semantic representations played a role in determining how well interference was resolved offline. For comprehension question reaction times, a measure of semantic STM capacity interacted with semantic but not syntactic interference. However, a measure of phonological capacity (digit span) and a general measure of resistance to response interference (Stroop effect) did not predict individuals' interference resolution abilities in either online or offline sentence comprehension. The results are discussed in relation to the multiple capacities account of working memory (e.g., Martin and Romani, 1994; Martin and He, 2004), and the cue-based retrieval parsing approach (e.g., Lewis et al., 2006; Van Dyke et al., 2014). While neither approach was fully supported, a possible means of reconciling the two approaches and directions for future research are proposed.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 111 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 25%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 14%
Student > Master 12 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 7%
Researcher 7 6%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 22 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Linguistics 35 32%
Psychology 25 23%
Neuroscience 9 8%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 27 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 January 2017.
All research outputs
#20,400,885
of 22,950,943 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#24,292
of 30,094 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#385,117
of 454,360 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#421
of 488 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,950,943 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,094 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 454,360 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 488 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.