Similar time courses for word form and meaning preactivation during sentence comprehension
Corresponding Author
Katherine A. DeLong
Department of Cognitive Science, University of California, San Diego (UCSD), La Jolla, California
Correspondence
Katherine A. Delong, Department of Cognitive Science, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, LA JOLLA, CA 92093-0515, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorWen-hsuan Chan
Department of Cognitive Science, University of California, San Diego (UCSD), La Jolla, California
Search for more papers by this authorMarta Kutas
Department of Cognitive Science, University of California, San Diego (UCSD), La Jolla, California
UCSD Center for Research in Language, La Jolla, California
UCSD Department of Neurosciences, La Jolla, California
UCSD Kavli Institute for Brain and Mind, La Jolla, California
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Katherine A. DeLong
Department of Cognitive Science, University of California, San Diego (UCSD), La Jolla, California
Correspondence
Katherine A. Delong, Department of Cognitive Science, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, LA JOLLA, CA 92093-0515, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorWen-hsuan Chan
Department of Cognitive Science, University of California, San Diego (UCSD), La Jolla, California
Search for more papers by this authorMarta Kutas
Department of Cognitive Science, University of California, San Diego (UCSD), La Jolla, California
UCSD Center for Research in Language, La Jolla, California
UCSD Department of Neurosciences, La Jolla, California
UCSD Kavli Institute for Brain and Mind, La Jolla, California
Search for more papers by this authorFunding information
NICHD grant (R01HD22614) (to M.K.)
Abstract
Current psycholinguistic research generally acknowledges that aspects of sentence comprehension benefit from neural preactivation of different types of information. However, despite strong support from a number of studies, routine specific word form preactivation has been challenged by Ito, Corley, Pickering, Martin, and Nieuwland (2016). They suggest that word form prediction is contingent upon having enough processing time and resources (afforded by slower input rates) to progress through unidirectional, productionlike stages of comprehension to arrive at word forms via semantic feature preactivation. This conclusion is based on findings from their ERP study, which used a related anomaly paradigm and reported form preactivation at a slow (700 ms) word presentation rate but not a faster one (500 ms). The present experimental design is a conceptual replication of Ito et al. (2016), testing young adults by measuring ERP amplitudes to unpredictable words related either semantically/associatively or orthographically to predictable sentence continuations, relative to unrelated continuations. Results showed that, at a visual presentation rate of two words per second, both types of related words show similarly reduced N400s, as well as varying degrees of increased posterior post-N400 positivity. These findings indicate that word form preactivation during sentence comprehension is detectable along a similar time course as semantic feature preactivation, and such processing does not necessarily require additional time beyond that afforded by near-normal reading rates.
Supporting Information
Filename | Description |
---|---|
psyp13312-sup-0001-Supinfo.docxapplication/docx, 21.8 KB | Appendix S1 |
Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
REFERENCES
- Altmann, G. T., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73(3), 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00059-1
- Amsel, B. D., DeLong, K. A., & Kutas, M. (2015). Close, but no garlic: Perceptuomotor and event knowledge activation during language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 82, 118–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.03.009
- Benton, A. L., & Hamsher, K. (1978). Multilingual aphasia examination. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa Hospitals.
- Brothers, T., Swaab, T. Y., & Traxler, M. J. (2017). Goals and strategies influence lexical prediction during sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 93, 203–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.10.002
- Brouwer, H., Fitz, H., & Hoeks, J. (2012). Getting real about semantic illusions: Rethinking the functional role of the P600 in language comprehension. Brain Research, 1446, 127–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2012.01.055
- Dambacher, M., Rolfs, M., Göllner, K., Kliegl, R., & Jacobs, A. M. (2009). Event-related potentials reveal rapid verification of predicted visual input. PLoS ONE, 4(3), e5047. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005047
- DeLong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2017). Is there a replication crisis? Perhaps. Is this an example? No: A commentary on Ito, Martin, and Nieuwland (2016). Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 32(8), 966–973. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2017.1279339
- DeLong, K. A. (2009). Electrophysiological explorations of linguistic preactivation and its consequences during online sentence processing. San Diego, CA: University of California, San Diego.
- DeLong, K. A., Groppe, D. M., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2012). Thinking ahead or not? Natural aging and anticipation during reading. Brain and Language, 121(3), 226–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2012.02.006
- DeLong, K. A., Quante, L., & Kutas, M. (2014). Predictability, plausibility, and two late ERP positivities during written sentence comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 61, 150–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.06.016
- DeLong, K. A., Troyer, M., & Kutas, M. (2014). Pre-processing in sentence comprehension: Sensitivity to likely upcoming meaning and structure. Language and Linguistics Compass, 8(12), 631–645. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12093
- Delong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., Groppe, D. M., & Kutas, M. (2011). Overlapping dual ERP responses to low cloze probability sentence continuations. Psychophysiology, 48(9), 1203–1207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01199.x
- DeLong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2005). Probabilistic word preactivation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience, 8(8), 1117–1121. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1504
- Dikker, S., Rabagliati, H., Farmer, T. A., & Pylkkänen, L. (2010). Early occipital sensitivity to syntactic category is based on form typicality. Psychological Science, 21(5), 629–634. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610367751
- Dikker, S., Rabagliati, H., & Pylkkänen, L. (2009). Sensitivity to syntax in visual cortex. Cognition, 110(3), 293–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.09.008
- Federmeier, K. D. (2007). Thinking ahead: The role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 44(4), 491–505. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00531.x
- Federmeier, K. D., & Kutas, M. (1999). A rose by any other name: Long-term memory structure and sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(4), 469–495. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2660
- Federmeier, K. D., Kutas, M., & Schul, R. (2010). Age-related and individual differences in the use of prediction during language comprehension. Brain and Language, 115(3), 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2010.07.006
- Fischler, I., Bloom, P. A., Childers, D. G., Roucos, S. E., & Perry, N. W. (1983). Brain potentials related to stages of sentence verification. Psychophysiology, 20, 400–409. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1983.tb00920.x
- Foucart, A., Martin, C. D., Moreno, E. M., & Costa, A. (2014). Can bilinguals see it coming? Word anticipation in L2 sentence reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(5), 1461–1469. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036756
- Grisoni, L., Miller, T. M., & Pulvermüller, F. (2017). Neural correlates of semantic prediction and resolution in sentence processing. Journal of Neuroscience, 37(18), 4848–4858. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2800-16.2017
- Huettig, F. (2015). Four central questions about prediction in language processing. Brain Research, 1626, 118–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2015.02.014
- Indefrey, P., & Levelt, W. J. (2004). The spatial and temporal signatures of word production components. Cognition, 92(1–2), 101–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2002.06.001
- Ito, A., Corley, M., Pickering, M. J., Martin, A. E., & Nieuwland, M. S. (2016). Predicting form and meaning: Evidence from brain potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 86, 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.10.007
- Ito, A., Martin, A. E., & Nieuwland, M. S. (2017). How robust are prediction effects in language comprehension? Failure to replicate article-elicited N400 effects. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 32(8), 954–965. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2016.1242761
- Ito, A., Pickering, M. J., & Corley, M. (2018). Investigating the time-course of phonological prediction in native and non-native speakers of English: A visual world eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language, 98, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.09.002
- Kim, A., & Lai, V. (2012). Rapid interactions between lexical semantic and word form analysis during word recognition in context: Evidence from ERPs. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(5), 1104–1112. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00148
- Kolk, H. H., Chwilla, D. J., Van Herten, M., & Oor, P. J. (2003). Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 85(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00548-5
- Kuperberg, G., & Wlotko, E. (2018). A tale of two positivities (and the N400): Distinct neural signatures are evoked by confirmed and violated predictions at different levels of representation. bioRxiv, 404780. https://doi.org/10.1101/404780
- Kuperberg, G. R. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research, 1146, 23–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.12.063
- Kuperberg, G. R., & Jaeger, T. F. (2016). What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(1), 32–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1102299
- Kutas, M., DeLong, K. A., & Smith, N. J. (2011). A look around at what lies ahead: Prediction and predictability in language processing. In M. Bar (Ed.), Predictions in the brain: Using our past to generate a future. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195395518.003.0065 Google Scholar
- Kwon, N., Sturt, P., & Liu, P. (2017). Predicting semantic features in Chinese: Evidence from ERPs. Cognition, 166, 433–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.06.010
- Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104(2), 211–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.211
- Laszlo, S., & Federmeier, K. D. (2009). A beautiful day in the neighborhood: An event-related potential study of lexical relationships and prediction in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(3), 326–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.06.004
- Laszlo, S., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). The N400 as a snapshot of interactive processing: Evidence from regression analyses of orthographic neighbor and lexical associate effects. Psychophysiology, 48(2), 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2010.01058.x
- Lau, E., Stroud, C., Plesch, S., & Phillips, C. (2006). The role of structural prediction in rapid syntactic analysis. Brain and Language, 98(1), 74–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2006.02.003
- Levelt, W. J., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99001776
- Martin, C. D., Thierry, G., Kuipers, J. R., Boutonnet, B., Foucart, A., & Costa, A. (2013). Bilinguals reading in their second language do not predict upcoming words as native readers do. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(4), 574–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.08.001
- Medler, D. A., & Binder, J. R. (2005). MCWord: An on-line orthographic database of the English language. Retrieved from http://www.neuro.mcw.edu/mcword/
- Metusalem, R., Kutas, M., Urbach, T. P., Hare, M., McRae, K., & Elman, J. L. (2012). Generalized event knowledge activation during online sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(4), 545–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.01.001
- Molinaro, N., Barraza, P., & Carreiras, M. (2013). Long-range neural synchronization supports fast and efficient reading: EEG correlates of processing expected words in sentences. NeuroImage, 72, 120–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.01.031
- Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (1998). The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Retrieved from http://www.usf.edu/FreeAssociation/
- Nieuwland, M. S., Politzer-Ahles, S., Heyselaar, E., Segaert, K., Darley, E., Kazanina, N., … Mézière, D. (2018). Large-scale Replication Study Reveals a Limit on Probabilistic Prediction in Language Comprehension. Elife, 7, e33468. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife. 33468.001
- Otten, M., & Van Berkum, J. J. (2008). Discourse-based word anticipation during language processing: Prediction or priming? Discourse Processes, 45(6), 464–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530802356463
- Pickering, M. J., & Gambi, C. (2018). Predicting while comprehending language: A theory and review. Psychological Bulletin, 144(10), 1002–1044. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000158
- Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2007). Do people use language production to make predictions during comprehension? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(3), 105–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.12.002
- Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4), 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12001495
- Rommers, J., Meyer, A. S., Praamstra, P., & Huettig, F. (2013). The contents of predictions in sentence comprehension: Activation of the shape of objects before they are referred to. Neuropsychologia, 51(3), 437–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.12.002
- Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1989). Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(4), 402–433. https://doi.org/10.2307/747605
- Staub, A., & Clifton, C., Jr. (2006). Syntactic prediction in language comprehension: Evidence from either … or. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(2), 425–436. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.2.425
- Staub, A., Grant, M., Astheimer, L., & Cohen, A. (2015). The influence of cloze probability and item constraint on cloze task response time. Journal of Memory and Language, 82, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.02.004
- Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643–662. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054651
- Szewczyk, J. M., & Schriefers, H. (2013). Prediction in language comprehension beyond specific words: An ERP study on sentence comprehension in Polish. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(4), 297–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.12.002
- Thornhill, D. E., & Van Petten, C. (2012). Lexical versus conceptual anticipation during sentence processing: Frontal positivity and N400 ERP components. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 83(3), 382–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.12.007
- Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2010). Quantifiers more or less quantify on-line: ERP evidence for partial incremental interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(2), 158–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.03.008
- Van Berkum, J. J., Brown, C. M., Zwitserlood, P., Kooijman, V., & Hagoort, P. (2005). Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: Evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(3), 443–467. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.3.443
- Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (1990). Interactions between sentence context and word frequency in event-related brain potentials. Memory & Cognition, 18(4), 380–393. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197127
- Van Petten, C., & Luka, B. J. (2012). Prediction during language comprehension: Benefits, costs, and ERP components. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 83(2), 176–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.09.015
- Vasishth, S. (2017). Nieuwland et al. replication attempts of DeLong at al. 2005. Retrieved from https://vasishth-statistics.blogspot.com/2017/04/
- Vissers, C. T. W., Chwilla, D. J., & Kolk, H. H. (2006). Monitoring in language perception: The effect of misspellings of words in highly constrained sentences. Brain Research, 1106(1), 150–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.05.012
- Wicha, N. Y., Bates, E. A., Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2003). Potato not Pope: Human brain potentials to gender expectation and agreement in Spanish spoken sentences. Neuroscience Letters, 346(3), 165–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3940(03)00599-8
- Wicha, N. Y., Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2003). Expecting gender: An event related brain potential study on the role of grammatical gender in comprehending a line drawing within a written sentence in Spanish. Cortex, 39(3), 483–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70260-0
- Wicha, N. Y., Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2004). Anticipating words and their gender: An event-related brain potential study of semantic integration, gender expectancy, and gender agreement in Spanish sentence reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(7), 1272–1288. https://doi.org/10.1162/0898929041920487
- Yan, S., Kuperberg, G. R., & Jaeger, T. F. (2017). Prediction (or not) during language processing. A commentary on Nieuwland et al. (2017) and Delong et al. (2005). bioRxiv, 143750. https://doi.org/10.1101/143750