Combining EEG and 3D-eye-tracking to study the prediction of upcoming speech in naturalistic virtual environments: A proof of principle

Predictive language processing: integrating comprehension and production, and what atypical populations can tell us

“…Electrophysiological measures revealed that words embedded into sentences whose content make such words predictable elicit a different event-related potential (ERP) responses compared to words that are not predictable (i.e., a reduced N400; for reviews, see Kutas and Federmeier, 2011 ; Van Petten and Luka, 2012 ; Nieuwland et al, 2020 ). Crucially, time-frequency analyses of magneto/electro-encephalographic (M/EEG) data also showed differences before predictable words are read or listened (i.e., a power decrease in the alpha—8–10 Hz—and beta—15–20 Hz—frequency bands), more directly reflecting the prediction stage and specifically the pre-activation of upcoming linguistic information (see e.g., Rommers et al, 2017 ; Molinaro and Monsalve, 2018 ; Wang et al, 2018 ; Gastaldon et al, 2020 ; León-Cabrera et al, 2022 ; but see Huizeling et al, 2023 for challenges to such benchmark correlates when testing in a virtual environment). The fact that comprehenders, regardless of modality (e.g., spoken, written, signed) anticipate information yet to be available in the environment is undisputed; however, there is no consensus on the mechanisms and resources employed to this aim (e.g., Huettig, 2015 ; Kuperberg and Jaeger, 2016 ; Huettig et al, 2022 ; Ryskin and Nieuwland, 2023 ).…”