Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-46n74 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T12:03:45.394Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cognitive Constraints and Island Effects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Philip Hofmeister  and
Ivan A. Sag
Philip Hofmeister*
Affiliation:
University ofCalifornia, San Diego
Ivan A. Sag*
Affiliation:
Stanford University
*
Hofmeister Center for Research on Language University of California, San Diego 9500 Gilman Dr., Dept. 0526 La Jolla, CA 92093–0526 [phofmeister@ucsd.edu]
Sag Department of Linguistics Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 [sag@stanford.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Competence-based theories of island effects play a central role in generative grammar, yet the graded nature of many syntactic islands has never been properly accounted for. Categorical syntactic accounts of island effects have persisted in spite of a wealth of data suggesting that island effects are not categorical in nature and that nonstructural manipulations that leave island structures intact can radically alter judgments of island violations. We argue here, building on work by Paul Deane, Robert Kluender, and others, that processing factors have the potential to account for this otherwise unexplained variation in acceptability judgments.

We report the results of self-paced reading experiments and controlled acceptability studies that explore the relationship between processing costs and judgments of acceptability. In each of the three self-paced reading studies, the data indicate that the processing cost of different types of island violations can be significantly reduced to a degree comparable to that of nonisland filler-gap constructions by manipulating a single nonstructural factor. Moreover, this reduction in processing cost is accompanied by significant improvements in acceptability. This evidence favors the hypothesis that island-violating constructions involve numerous processing pressures that aggregate to drive processing difficulty above a threshold, resulting in unacceptability. We examine the implications of these findings for the grammar of filler-gap dependencies.

Keywords

syntaxislandsprocessing difficultyfiller-gap dependenciesWH-phrase complexityWH-movement

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 86 , Issue 2 , June 2010 , pp. 366 - 415
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alexopoulou, Theodora, and Keller, Frank. 2003. Linguistic complexity, locality, and resumption. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 22.15–28.Google Scholar
Alexopoulou, Theodora, and Keller, Frank. 2007. Locality, cyclicity and resumption: At the interface between the grammar and the human sentence processor. Language 83.110–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allwood, Jens. 1976. The complex NP constraint as a non-universal rule and some semantic factors influencing the acceptability of Swedish sentences which violate the CNPC. University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics, vol. 2, ed. by Stillings, Justine, 1–20. Amherst: University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Anderson, John R. 1983. The architecture of cognition. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press. [Reprinted, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996.]Google Scholar
Anderson, John R., and Reder, Lynne. 1979. An elaborative processing explanation of depth of processing. Levels of processing in human memory, ed. by Cermak, Laird and Craik, Fergus, 385–404. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Andersson, Lars-Gunnar. 1982. What is Swedish an exception to? Extractions and island constraints. In Engdahl & Ejerhed, 33–46.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Arnon, Inbal, Estigarribia, Bruno, Hofmeister, Philip, Jaeger, T. Florian, Pettibone, Jeanette, Sag, Ivan A.; and Snider, Neal. 2005. Long-distance dependencies without island constraints. Poster presented at HOWL 3: Hopkins Workshop on Language.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2004. Statistics in psycholinguistics: A critique of some current gold standards. Mental Lexicon Working Papers 1.1–45.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bever, Thomas. 1970. The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. Cognition and the development of language, ed. by Hayes, John R., 279–362. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Bever, Thomas. 1975. Functionalist explanations presuppose independently motived theories of behavior. Chicago Linguistic Society 11.2. 580–635.Google Scholar
Bever, Thomas. 2009. Remarks on the individual basis for linguistic structures. Of minds and language: A dialogue with Noam Chomsky in the Basque country, ed. by Piattelli-Palmarini, Massimo, Uriagereka, Juan, and Salaburu, Pello, 279–95. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, Gary, and Anderson, John R.. 1982. Elaborative encoding as an explanation of levels of processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 21.165–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braze, Forrest D. 2002. Grammaticality, acceptability, and sentence processing: A psycholinguists study. Storrs: University of Connecticut dissertation.Google Scholar
Butler, Alban, and Walsh, Michael J.. 1991. Butler's lives of the saints. San Francisco: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1962. The logical basis of linguistic theory. Preprints of the papers for the ninth International Congress of Linguists, August 27–31, 1962, ed. by Morris Halle, 509–74.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. A festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. by Anderson, Stephen and Kiparsky, Paul, 232–86. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. Formal syntax, ed. by Culicover, Peter, Wasow, Thomas, and Akmajian, Adrian, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries. Step by step, ed. by Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, and Uriagereka, Juan, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 1994. Wh-agreement and ‘referentiality’ in Chamorro. Linguistic Inquiry 25.1–44.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of A'-dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clifton, Charles Jr., and Frazier, Lyn. 1989. Comprehending sentences with longdistance dependencies. Linguistic structure in language processing, ed. by Tanenhaus, Michael and Carlson, Greg, 273–317. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comorovski, Ileana. 1989. Discourse and the syntax of multiple constituent questions. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University dissertation.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter. 1984. Learnability explanations and processing explanations. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2.77–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daneman, Meredyth, and Carpenter, Patricia. 1980. Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19.450–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deane, Paul. 1991. Limits to attention: A cognitive theory of island phenomena. Cognitive Linguistics 2.1–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engdahl, Elisabet. 1982. Restrictions on unbounded dependencies in Swedish. In Engdahl & Ejerhed, 151–74.Google Scholar
Engdahl, Elisabet, and Ejerhed, Eva (eds.) 1982. Readings on unbounded dependencies in Scandinavian languages. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Ernst, Thomas B. 2002. The syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1973. On the nature of island constraints. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2007. Information structure: The syntax-discourse interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi, and Lappin, Shalom. 1979. Dominance and the functional explanation of island constraints. Theoretical Linguistics 6.43–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fedorenko, Evelina, Gibson, Edward; and Rohde, Doug. 2007. The nature of working memory in linguistic, arithmetic and spatial integration processes. Journal of Memory and Language 56.246–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, Fernanda, and Charles Clifton, Jr. 1986. The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language 25.348–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiebach, Christian, Schlesewsky, Matthias; and Friederici, Angela D.. 2001. Syntactic working memory and the establishment of filler-gap dependencies: Insights from ERPs and fMRI. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 30.321–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frazier, Lyn. 1987. Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5.519–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, Lyn, and Clifton, Charles. 1989. Successive cyclicity in the grammar and the parser. Language and Cognitive Processes 4.93–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgopoulos, Carol. 1985. Variables in Palauan syntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3.59–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgopoulos, Carol. 1991. Syntactic variables: Resumptive pronouns and A' binding in Palauan. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, Edward. 1990. A computational theory of processing overload and garden-path effects. Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Computational Linguistics, 114–19. Morristown, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68.1–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, Edward. 2000. The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. Image, language, brain, ed. by Marantz, Alec, Miyashita, Yasushi, and O'Neil, Wayne, 95–126. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward. 2006. The interaction of top-down and bottom-up statistics in the resolution of syntactic category ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language 54.363–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, Edward, and Pearlmutter, Neal. 1998. Constraints on sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Science 2.262–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ginzburg, Jonathan, and Sag, Ivan A.. 2000. Interrogative investigations: The form, meaning, and use of English interrogatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gordon, Peter, Hendrick, Randall; and Levine, William H.. 2002. Memory-load interference in syntactic processing. Psychological Science 13.425–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grodner, Daniel, and Gibson, Edward. 2005. Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input for sentential complexity. Cognitive Science 29.261–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Stokhof, Martin. 1997. Questions. Handbook of logic and language, ed. by Benthem, Johan van and Meulen, Alice ter, 1055–124. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, and Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette, Hedberg, Nancy; and Zacharski, Ron. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69.274–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, John. 2001. A probablistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. Proceedings of the second meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 1–8. Morristown, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Hamblin, Charles L. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10.41–53.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John. 1999. Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars. Language 75.244–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschbühler, Paul, and Valois, Daniel. 1992. Argument extraction out of indirect questions in French. Island constraints: Theory, acquisition and processing, ed. by Goodluck, Helen and Rochemont, Michael, 195–222. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hitzeman, Janet. 1997. Semantic partition and the ambiguity of sentences containing temporal adverbials. Natural Language Semantics 5.87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip. 2007. Representational complexity and memory retrieval in language comprehension. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip, Jaeger, T. Florian, Sag, Ivan A., Arnon, Inbal; and Snider, Neal. 2007. Locality and accessibility in wh-questions. Roots: Linguistics in search of its evidential base, ed. by Featherston, Sam and Sternefeld, Wolfgang, 185–206. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, Dan. 2003. Probabilistic modeling in psycholinguistics: Linguistic comprehension and production. Probabilistic linguistics, ed. by Bod, Rens, Hay, Jennifer, and Jannedy, Stefanie, 39–95. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Just, Marcel, and Carpenter, Patricia. 1992. A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review 99.122–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Just, Marcel, Carpenter, Patricia A.; and Woolley, J. D.. 1982. Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 111.228–38.Google ScholarPubMed
Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics & Philosophy 1.3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Jonathan, and Just, Marcel. 1991. Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language 30.580–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kluender, Robert. 1991. Cognitive constraints on variables in syntax. La Jolla, CA: University of California, San Diego dissertation.Google Scholar
Kluender, Robert. 1992. Deriving islands constraints from principles of predication. Island constraints: Theory, acquisition and processing, ed. by Goodluck, Helen and Rochemont, Michael, 223–58. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kluender, Robert. 1998. On the distinction between strong and weak islands: A processing perspective. Syntax and semantics, vol. 29: The limits of syntax, ed. by Culicover, Peter and McNally, Louise, 241–79. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kluender, Robert. 2005. Are subject islands subject to a processing account? West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 23.475–99.Google Scholar
Kluender, Robert, and Kutas, Marta. 1993a. Bridging the gap: Evidence from ERPs on the processing of unbounded dependencies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 5.196–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kluender, Robert, and Kutas, Marta. 1993b. Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes 8.573–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kothari, Anubha. 2008. Frequency-based expectations and context influence bridge quality. Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL) 2008. Online: http://www.Stanford.edu/~anubha/publications.html.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1998. Amount quantification, referentiality, and long wh-movement. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 5.2. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Levy, Roger. 2005. Probalistic models of word order and syntactic discontinuity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Lewis, Richard. 1996. Interference in short-term memory: The magical number two (or three) in sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25.93–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maling, Joan. 1978. An asymmetry with respect to wh-islands. Linguistic Inquiry 9.75–89.Google Scholar
Maling, Joan, and Zaenen, Annie. 1982. A phrase structure account of Scandinavian extraction phenomena. The nature of syntactic representation, ed. by Jacobson, Pauline and Pullum, Geoff, 229–82. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita. 1992. Locality: A theory and some of its empirical consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McDaniel, Mark, Dunay, Paul, Lyman, Brian; and Kerwin, Mary Louis. 1989. Effects of elaboration and relational distinctiveness on sentence memory. The American Journal of Psychology 101.357–69.Google Scholar
McElree, Brian, and Griffith, Teresa. 1998. Structural and lexical constraints on filling gaps during sentence comprehension: A time-course analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 24.432–60.Google Scholar
Miller, George A., and Chomsky, Noam. 1963. Finitary models of language users. Handbook of mathematical psychology, vol. 2, ed. by Luce, R. Duncan, Bush, Robert R., and Galanter, Eugene, 419–92. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Oshima, David. 2007. On factive islands: Pragmatic anomaly vs. pragmatic infelicity. New frontiers in artificial intelligence: Joint JSAI 2006 Workshop post-proceedings, ed. by Washio, Takashi, Satoh, Ken, Terada, Hideaki, and Inokuchi, Akihiro, 147–61. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Osterhout, Lee, and Swinney, David. 1993. On the temporal course of gap-filling during comprehension of verbal passives. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 22.273–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pashler, Hal. 1994. Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin 116.220–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. The representation of (in)definiteness, ed. by Reuland, Eric and Meulen, Alice ter, 98–129. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Colin. 2007. The real-time status of island phenomena. Language 82.795–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, Martin, Barton, Stephen; and Shillcock, Richard. 1994. Unbounded dependencies, island constraints and processing complexity. Perspectives on sentence processing, ed. by Clifton, Charles Jr., Frazier, Lyn, and Rayner, Keith, 199–224. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Pickering, Martin, and Traxler, Matthew. 2001. Strategies for processing unbounded dependencies: Lexical information and verb-argument assignment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27.1401–10.Google ScholarPubMed
Pinheiro, José C., and Bates, Douglas M.. 2000. Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reder, Lynne. 1980. The role of elaboration in the comprehension and retention of prose: A critical review. Review of Educational Research 50.5–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reder, Lynne, Charney, Davida; and Morgan, Kim I.. 1986. The role of elaborations in learning a skill from an instructional text. Memory and Cognition 14.64–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Violations of the wh-island constraint and the subjacency condition. Issues in Italian syntax, 49–76. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2001. Reconstruction, weak island sensitivity, and agreement. Semantic interfaces: Reference, anaphora and aspect, ed. by Cecchetto, Carlo, Chierchia, Gennaro, and Guasti, Maria Teresa, 145–76. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. [Published as Infinite syntax!, Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1986.]Google Scholar
Rudin, Catherine. 1988. On multiple questions and multiple wh-fronting. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6.445–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saah, Kofi, and Goodluck, Helen. 1995. Island effects in parsing and grammar: Evidence from Akan. Linguistic Review 12.381–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabel, Joachim. 2002a. A minimalist analysis of syntactic islands. The Linguistic Review 19.271–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabel, Joachim. 2002b. Wh-questions and extraction asymmetries in Malagasy. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 44.309–23.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2010. English filler-gap constructions. Language 86.3. to appear.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique. 1981. Bounding nodes in French. The Linguistic Review 1.219–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, Jon. 2007. A program for experimental syntax. College Park: University of Maryland, College Park dissertation.Google Scholar
Sprouse, Jon. 2009. Revisiting satiation: Evidence for an equalization response strategy. Linguistic Inquiry 40.329–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stowe, Laurie A. 1986. Parsing wh-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes 1.227–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 2006. Strong vs. weak islands. The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. 4, ed. by Everaert, Martin and Riemsdijk, Henk van, 479–531. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna, and Dikken, Marcel den. 2003. Islands. The second Glot International state-of-the-article book: The latest in linguistics, ed. by Cheng, Lisa and Sybesma, Rint, 213–40. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna, and Zwarts, Frank. 1993. Weak islands and an algebraic semantics of scope taking. Natural Language Semantics 1.235–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taraldsen, Knut T. 1982. Extraction from relative clauses in Norwegian. In Engdahl & Ejerhed, 205–21.Google Scholar
Traxler, Matthew, and Pickering, Martin. 1996. Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language 35.454–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truswell, Robert. 2007. Locality of wh-movement and the individuation of events. London: University College London dissertation.Google Scholar
Van Dyke, Julie A. 2007. Interference effects from grammatically unavailable constituents during sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 33.407–30.Google ScholarPubMed
Vasishth, Shravan, and Lewis, Richard. 2006. Argument-head distance and processing complexity: Explaining both locality and antilocality effects. Language 82.767–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagers, Matt, and Phillips, Colin. 2009. Multiple dependencies and the role of the grammar in real-time comprehension. Journal of Linguistics 45.395–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wanner, Eric, and Maratsos, Michael. 1978. An ATN approach to comprehension. Linguistic theory and psychological reality, ed. by Halle, Morris, Bresnan, Joan, and Miller, George A., 119–61. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Warren, Tessa, and Gibson, Edward. 2002. The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition 85.79–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warren, Tessa, and Gibson, Edward. 2005. Effects of NP type in reading cleft sentences in English. Language and Cognitive Processes 20.751–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiseman, Sandor, MacLeod, Colin M.; and Lootsteen, P. J.. 1985. Picture recognition improves with subsequent verbal information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 11.588–95.Google ScholarPubMed