ArticlePloS one2017
Early positivity signals changes in an abstract linguistic pattern.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lexical Surprisal Shapes the Time Course of Syntactic Structure Building.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- Formant-invariant voice and pitch representations are pre-attentively formed from constantly varying speech and non-speech stimuli.The European journal of neuroscience · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The extraction of abstract structures from speech (or from gestures in the case of sign languages) has been claimed to be a fundamental mechanism for language acquisition. In the present study we registered the neural responses that are triggered when a violation of an abstract, token-independent rule is detected. We registered ERPs while presenting participants with trisyllabic CVCVCV nonsense words in an oddball paradigm. Standard stimuli followed an ABB rule (where A and B are different syllables). Importantly, to distinguish neural responses triggered by changes in surface information from responses triggered by changes in the underlying abstract structure, we used two types of deviant stimuli. Phoneme deviants differed from standards only in their phonemes. Rule deviants differed from standards in both their phonemes and their composing rule. We observed a significant positivity as early as 300 ms after the presentation of deviant stimuli that violated the abstract rule (Rule deviants). The amplitude of this neural response was correlated with participants' performance in a behavioral rule learning test. Differences in electrophysiological responses observed between learners and non-learners suggest that individual differences in an abstract rule learning task might be related to how listeners select relevant sources of information.
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.