ArticleBrain and language2017
The N400 in processing repeated name and pronoun anaphors in sentences and discourse.
Article in Brain and language, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Neural correlates of pronoun processing: An activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis.Brain and language · 2023Pooled it
- An Event-Related Brain Potential (ERP) Study of Complex Anaphora in Spanish.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Referential Chains Reveal Predictive Processes and Form-to-Function Mapping: An Electroencephalographic Study Using Naturalistic Story Stimuli.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- When Proactivity Fails: An Electrophysiological Study of Establishing Reference in Schizophrenia.Biological psychiatry. Cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We report two EEG/ERP experiments that examined processing of repeated name (e.g., Bill; Experiment 1) and pronoun (e.g., he; Experiment 2) subject anaphors to single antecedents (e.g., Bill) and to antecedents embedded in a conjunction (e.g., Bill and Mary) within sentences and discourses. Experiment 1 replicated previous reports of repeated references to single antecedents eliciting greater N400 negativity than repeated references to conjoined antecedents within sentences, and extended these results to cross-sentence (discourse) references. Experiment 2 found that pronouns also elicited greater N400 negativity following single than conjoined antecedents. In both experiments, references to conjoined antecedents elicited greater frontal negativity than references to single antecedents in both sentences and discourse. Our results indicate that, in processing subject anaphors, the N400 is an index of reference predictability rather than a marker of the fit between antecedent salience and reference form, and that frontal negativity marks referential ambiguity elicited by conjoined phrases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.