Multiple predictions during language comprehension: Friends, foes, or indifferent companions?

Error-based implicit learning in language: the effect of sentence context and constraint in a repetition paradigm

“…While the first presentation of high constraint sentences violating high certainty predictions was characterized by a late frontal positivity compared to the same unexpected item in low constraint sentences, this difference was diminished upon second presentation of the sentences. There are different interpretations of the cognitive process underlying the frontal positivity such as the update of message level representations (Brothers et al, 2023; Kuperberg et al, 2020) or the suppression of the predicted sentence continuation (Ness & Meltzer-Asscher, 2018). While future research is necessary to disentangle these accounts, the results demonstrate that learning based on just one exposure to an unexpected sentence continuation can reduce consequences of strong violated predictions.…”

“…The pattern suggests a cognitive process dealing with the consequences of precise predictions that are violated. The exact functional specificity of the frontal positivity is still debated, but it generally seems to be related to additional effort necessary for representation update, by updating the underlying higher level message representation (Brothers et al, 2023;Kuperberg et al, 2020) or the suppression of the originally predicted sentence continuations (Ness & Meltzer-Asscher, 2018).The late frontal positivity is relevant to the discussion of adaptation processes in sentence repetition on two levels. As discussed above, parts of this experiment (i.e., the constraint manipulation) investigated a possible effect of constraint on changes in semantic predictions as reflected in the (reduced) N400 amplitude of repeated sentences.…”

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

“…While valuable, these findings do not automatically and incontrovertibly prove that language production has no role in prediction, because this interpretation does not automatically follow from the findings, but depends on the kind of models one assumes for production (lexical competition by lateral inhibition vs. response selection) ( Spalek et al, 2013 ). In a model where there is no competition by lateral inhibition in word production ( Dell, 1986 ; Mahon et al, 2007 ; Navarrete et al, 2014 ), the findings by Brothers et al (2023) would not be taken as evidence against the deployment of production processes during prediction. Furthermore, in the study, no measure of individual language production abilities is put in relation with the ERPs measured during comprehension.…”

“…Furthermore, in the study, no measure of individual language production abilities is put in relation with the ERPs measured during comprehension. Therefore, we believe the interpretation put forward by Brothers et al (2023) should be taken more cautiously.…”

“…It is important to note that at least one study claimed to have found evidence against the involvement of language production in prediction. Brothers et al (2023) studied ERPs elicited when reading sentences that could constraint toward two possible candidates (expected and second-best). The main finding of interest here is that there was no difference in the ERPs of these two possible sentence continuations.…”