Previous work has ostensibly shown that readers rapidly adapt to less predictable ambiguity resolutions after repeated exposure to unbalanced statistical input (e.g., a high number of reduced relative-clause garden-path sentences), and that these readers grow to disfavor the a priori more frequent (e.g. main verb) resolution after exposure (Fine, Jaeger, Farmer, & Qian, 2013). However, recent work has failed to replicate effects indicating a penalty for the a priori preferred, more frequent continuation, despite finding a speedup in syntactic repair times after initial exposure to the dispreferred, infrequent structure (Harrington Stack, James, & Watson, 2018). The current study reports three self-paced reading experiments that test whether co-occurring cues (explicit comprehension questions, preceding semantic cues, and font color) help facilitate adaptation to reduced relative/main verb garden-path sentences. Results suggest that readers do not overcome preexisting expectation biases by rapidly adapting to statistically novel linguistic contexts even with convergent probabilistic cues. An emphasis is placed on the difference between syntactic satiation effects and expectation adaptation, the latter of which we argue can only be determined through a penalty for an a priori preferred resolution after repeated exposure to its a priori less-preferred counterpart.