2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.04.011
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Stimulus onset asynchrony and the timeline of word recognition: Event-related potentials during sentence reading

Abstract: Article in press in Neuropsychologia [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.04.011] Please note that this unproofed preprint may be subject to minor changes. [May 5, 2012] SOA and the Timeline of Word Recognition 2 AbstractThree ERP experiments examined the effect of word presentation rate (i.e., stimulus onset asynchrony, SOA) on the time course of word frequency and predictability effects in sentence reading. In Experiments 1 and 2, sentences were presented word-by-word in the screen center… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
68
2

Year Published

2013
2013
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 67 publications
(77 citation statements)
references
References 139 publications
6
68
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, it is possible that comprehenders do use argument role information to predict an upcoming verb, but they simply cannot do so quickly enough when the verb appears immediately following the arguments. This idea is consistent with previous findings that timing manipulations can modulate predictability effects (e.g., Dambacher et al, 2012;Ito, Corley, Pickering, Martin, & Nieuwland, 2016;Kutas, 1993;Wlotko & Federmeier, 2015). Under this view, the N400's sensitivity to argument role reversals should depend on (i) the predictability of the verb and (ii) the amount of time available for comprehenders to incorporate information about the arguments' roles in their verb predictions.…”
Section: Prediction In the Processing Of Thematic Relationssupporting
confidence: 90%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Therefore, it is possible that comprehenders do use argument role information to predict an upcoming verb, but they simply cannot do so quickly enough when the verb appears immediately following the arguments. This idea is consistent with previous findings that timing manipulations can modulate predictability effects (e.g., Dambacher et al, 2012;Ito, Corley, Pickering, Martin, & Nieuwland, 2016;Kutas, 1993;Wlotko & Federmeier, 2015). Under this view, the N400's sensitivity to argument role reversals should depend on (i) the predictability of the verb and (ii) the amount of time available for comprehenders to incorporate information about the arguments' roles in their verb predictions.…”
Section: Prediction In the Processing Of Thematic Relationssupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Instead, they provide empirical support for Laszlo and Federmeier's (2009) proposal that "quantitative shifts in the timing of processing can potentially lead to qualitative differences in what particular facets of semantics come to be linked up with a given input" (p.32) and highlight the importance of timing considerations in the study of prediction (cf. Dambacher et al, 2012;Wlotko & Federmeier, 2015). Note, however, that the present proposal is distinct from 'good-enough' models of language comprehension (e.g., Christianson, Hollingworth, Halliwell, & Ferreira, 2001;Ferreira, Bailey, & Ferraro, 2002), or any model which posits that detailed syntactic information may be ignored during comprehension (e.g., Townsend & Bever, 2001).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 53%
“…This, however, is problematic for the investigation of sentence processing, because slow presentation rates lead to unnatural processing strategies. For instance, an early interaction between predictability and word frequency occurs only at natural, but not at artificially slow reading rates (Dambacher et al, 2012). This is in line with Bar et al's (2006) proposal that slow presentation rates engage a largely bottom-up driven processing strategy, which prevents the OFC from becoming active.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 75%
“…Stimuli were taken from Dambacher et al (2009Dambacher et al ( , 2012. Each participant read 144 sentence units.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation