Predictive Pre-updating and Working Memory Capacity: Evidence from Event-related Potentials

Abstract

It was recently proposed that lexical prediction in sentence context encompasses two qualitatively distinct prediction mechanisms: "preactivation," namely activating representations stored in long-term memory, and "preupdating," namely updating the sentence's representation, built online in working memory (WM), to include the predicted content [Lau, E. F., Holcomb, P. J., & Kuperberg, G. R. Dissociating N400 effects of prediction from association in single-word contexts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25, 484-502, 2013]. The current study sought to find evidence for preupdating and test the influence of individual differences in WM capacity on the tendency to engage in this process. Participants read strongly and weakly constraining sentences. ERPs were measured on the predictable noun as well as on the preceding verb, where the prediction is generated. Increased P600 amplitude was observed at the verb in the strongly constraining sentences, reflecting integration of the predicted upcoming argument, thus providing evidence for preupdating. This effect was greater for participants with higher WM capacity, indicating that the tendency to engage in preupdating is highly affected by WM capacity. The opposite effect was observed at the noun, that is, for participants with higher WM span, a greater decrease in P600 amplitude in the strongly constraining sentences was observed, indicating that the integration of a preupdated word was easier. We discuss these results in light of previous literature and propose a plausible architecture to account for the interplay between preactivation and preupdating, mediating the influence of factors such as WM capacity.

From pre‐activation to pre‐updating: A threshold mechanism for commitment to strong predictions

“…Accumulating evidence suggests that, unlike the N400 component, the P600 is unlikely to reflect activation levels or retrieval difficulty; instead, it was argued to reflect integration processes (e.g., Brouwer et al., 2012; Delogu et al., 2019; Kaan et al., 2000). Thus, although the specific functional nature of the P600 component is still under debate, if any of the processes involved in integrating a word—syntactic structure building, dependency formation, thematic role assignment, semantic integration, etc.,—affect P600 amplitude, this is sufficient for the conclusion that pre‐updating (i.e., integrating a predicted word) is reflected in the P600 effect observed in Ness and Meltzer‐Asscher (2018a), as well as in the current study.…”

“…Understanding what triggers pre‐updating is vital in order to establish an accurate model of how the two prediction mechanisms, namely pre‐activation and pre‐updating, are incorporated within the general processing stages of a word in a sentence. The current study is aimed to test the view presented in Ness and Meltzer‐Asscher (2018a), shown in Figure 1.…”

“…An outline of prediction processes within the processing stages of a word. Adapted from Ness and Meltzer‐Asscher (2018a) with permission…”

The effect of decay and lexical uncertainty on processing long-distance dependencies in reading

“…Pre-activation therefore represents a processing advantage at predictable versus unpredictable words, as reflected by shorter reading times (Ehrlich & Rayner, 1981;Staub, 2015;Kliegl et al, 2004) and decreased event-related potential (ERP) components (Kutas & Hillyard, 1980, 1984Kutas & Federmeier, 2011). It has also been proposed that strong pre-activation may trigger pre-integration of a specific lexical item into the building sentence representation in working memory (Ness & Meltzer-Asscher, 2018;Lewis & Vasishth, 2005;Vasishth & Lewis, 2006).…”

Peer Review #2 of "The effect of decay and lexical uncertainty on processing long-distance dependencies in reading (v0.2)"

“…pre-activation therefore represents a processing advantage at predictable versus unpredictable words, as reflected by shorter reading times (Ehrlich and Rayner, 1981;Staub, 2015;Kliegl et al, 2004) and decreased eventrelated potential (ERP) components Hillyard, 1980, 1984;Kutas and Federmeier, 2011). It has also been proposed that strong pre-activation may trigger pre-integration of a specific lexical item into the building sentence representation in working memory (Ness and Meltzer-Asscher, 2018; Lewis and Vasishth, 2005;Vasishth and Lewis, 2006).…”