Trial reportPloS one2018
Semantic anomaly detection in school-aged children during natural sentence reading - A study of fixation-related brain potentials.
Trial report in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Aging and word predictability during reading: Evidence from eye movements and fixation-related potentials.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
- Eye Movements and Fixation-Related Potentials in Reading: A Review.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- A co-registration investigation of inter-word spacing and parafoveal preview: Eye movements and fixation-related potentials.PloS one · 2019Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, we investigated the effects of context-related semantic anomalies on the fixation-related brain potentials of 12-13-year-old Finnish children in grade 6 during sentence reading. The detection of such anomalies is typically reflected in the N400 event-related potential. We also examined whether the representation invoked by the sentence context extends to the orthographic representation level by replacing the final words of the sentence with an anomalous word neighbour of a plausible word. The eye-movement results show that the anomalous word neighbours of plausible words cause similar first-fixation and gaze duration reactions, as do other anomalous words. Similarly, we observed frontal negativity in the fixation-related potential of the unrelated anomalous words and in the anomalous word neighbours. This frontal negativity was larger in both anomalous conditions than in the response elicited by the plausible condition. We thus show that the brain successfully uses context to separate anomalous words from plausible words on a single letter level during free reading. From the P600 response of the scalp waveform, we observed that the P600 was delayed in the anomalous word neighbour condition. We performed group-level decomposition on the data with ICA (independent component analysis) and analysed the time course and source structure of the decomposed data. This analysis of decomposed brain signals not only confirmed the delay of the P600 response but also revealed that the frontal negativity concealed s more typical and separate N400 response, which was similarly delayed in the anomalous word neighbour condition, as was the P600 response. Source analysis of these independent components implicated the right frontal eye field as the cortical source for the frontal negativity and the middle temporal and parietal regions as cortical sources for the components resembling the N400 and P600 responses. We interpret the delays present in N400 and P600 responses to anomalous word neighbours to reflect competition with the representation of the plausible word just one letter different.
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.