Seeing words in context: the interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading

Hoeks, John; Stowe, Laurie A.; Doedens, Gina

doi:10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2003.10.022

Cited by 312 publications

(334 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

269

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This would be in line with the combination priming account proposed for text-based predictability effects (Duffy, Henderson, & Morris, 1989; see also the comparable concept of lexicosemantic fit proposed by Hoeks, Stowe, & Doedens, 2004). Although we were able to avoid strong lexical associates in many of our context sentences, we cannot exclude the possibility that part or all of the adjective-elicited effects hinge on some subtle form of combination priming.…”

Section: Discourse-based Lexical Anticipationsupporting

confidence: 84%

Anticipating Upcoming Words in Discourse: Evidence From ERPs and Reading Times.

Berkum¹,

Brown²,

Zwitserlood³

et al. 2005

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

658

643

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors examined whether people can use their knowledge of the wider discourse rapidly enough to anticipate specific upcoming words as a sentence is unfolding. In an event-related brain potential (ERP) experiment, subjects heard Dutch stories that supported the prediction of a specific noun. To probe whether this noun was anticipated at a preceding indefinite article, stories were continued with a gender-marked adjective whose suffix mismatched the upcoming noun's syntactic gender. Predictioninconsistent adjectives elicited a differential ERP effect, which disappeared in a no-discourse control experiment. Furthermore, in self-paced reading, prediction-inconsistent adjectives slowed readers down before the noun. These findings suggest that people can indeed predict upcoming words in fluent discourse and, moreover, that these predicted words can immediately begin to participate in incremental parsing operations.

show abstract

Section: Discourse-based Lexical Anticipationsupporting

confidence: 84%

Anticipating Upcoming Words in Discourse: Evidence From ERPs and Reading Times.

Berkum¹,

Brown²,

Zwitserlood³

et al. 2005

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

658

643

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our model successfully predicted the desired N400 effects for the contrasts tested in the Hoeks et al. (2004) study: No N400 effect for the role‐reversed condition [Reversal (Active)] relative to control [Control (Passive)], and an N400 effect for both the passive mismatch [Mismatch (Passive)] condition and the active mismatch condition [Mismatch (Active)] relative to control. In Appendix S4, we show empirically that other approaches toward training the Retrieval module do not induce such context‐sensitivity and hence do not yield the desired results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(2004). Panel (A) shows the P600 amplitudes as measured in the original experiment (at the Pz electrode), transformed to a zero‐to‐one scale (see text).…”

Section: Simulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Neurocomputational Model of the N400 and the P600 in Language Processing

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ten years ago, researchers using event‐related brain potentials (ERPs) to study language comprehension were puzzled by what looked like a Semantic Illusion: Semantically anomalous, but structurally well‐formed sentences did not affect the N400 component—traditionally taken to reflect semantic integration—but instead produced a P600 effect, which is generally linked to syntactic processing. This finding led to a considerable amount of debate, and a number of complex processing models have been proposed as an explanation. What these models have in common is that they postulate two or more separate processing streams, in order to reconcile the Semantic Illusion and other semantically induced P600 effects with the traditional interpretations of the N400 and the P600. Recently, however, these multi‐stream models have been called into question, and a simpler single‐stream model has been proposed. According to this alternative model, the N400 component reflects the retrieval of word meaning from semantic memory, and the P600 component indexes the integration of this meaning into the unfolding utterance interpretation. In the present paper, we provide support for this “Retrieval–Integration (RI)” account by instantiating it as a neurocomputational model. This neurocomputational model is the first to successfully simulate the N400 and P600 amplitude in language comprehension, and simulations with this model provide a proof of concept of the single‐stream RI account of semantically induced patterns of N400 and P600 modulations.

show abstract

“…When the word at which such sentences are rendered semantically anomalous has a strong lexico-semantic fit (e.g., ''eat'' in the above example), it does not elicit an N400 effect, but instead elicits a late positivity [18,21,22,49]. Because the polarity, timing, and scalp distribution of this positivity strongly resembles that of the syntax-related P600 effect (see [32] for review), it has in all abovementioned studies been taken to be an instance of the latter.…”

Section: The Late Positivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing the limits of the semantic illusion phenomenon: ERPs reveal temporary semantic change deafness in discourse comprehension

Nieuwland

Berkum

2005

Cognitive Brain Research

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In general, language comprehension is surprisingly reliable. Listeners very rapidly extract meaning from the unfolding speech signal, on a word-by-word basis, and usually successfully. Research on Fsemantic illusions_ however suggests that under certain conditions, people fail to notice that the linguistic input simply doesn't make sense. In the current event-related brain potentials (ERP) study, we examined whether listeners would, under such conditions, spontaneously detect an anomaly in which a human character central to the story at hand (e.g., ''a tourist'') was suddenly replaced by an inanimate object (e.g., ''a suitcase''). Because this replacement introduced a very powerful coherence break, we expected listeners to immediately notice the anomaly and generate the standard ERP effect associated with incoherent language, the N400 effect. However, instead of the standard N400 effect, anomalous words elicited a positive ERP effect from about 500 -600 ms onwards. The absence of an N400 effect suggests that subjects did not immediately notice the anomaly, and that for a few hundred milliseconds the comprehension system has converged on an apparently coherent but factually incorrect interpretation. The presence of the later ERP effect indicates that subjects were processing for comprehension and did ultimately detect the anomaly. Therefore, we take the absence of a regular N400 effect as the online manifestation of a temporary semantic illusion. Our results also show that even attentive listeners sometimes fail to notice a radical change in the nature of a story character, and therefore suggest a case of short-lived Fsemantic change deafness_ in language comprehension. D 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.Theme: Neural basis of behavior Topic: Cognition

show abstract

Seeing words in context: the interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading

Cited by 312 publications

References 27 publications

Anticipating Upcoming Words in Discourse: Evidence From ERPs and Reading Times.

Anticipating Upcoming Words in Discourse: Evidence From ERPs and Reading Times.

A Neurocomputational Model of the N400 and the P600 in Language Processing

Testing the limits of the semantic illusion phenomenon: ERPs reveal temporary semantic change deafness in discourse comprehension

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About