ArticleFrontiers in psychology2021
Rational Adaptation in Lexical Prediction: The Influence of Prediction Strength.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictability effects during reading comprehension are not modulated by a visuospatial working memory load.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
- Evaluating the compatibility of predictive coding as a model of linguistic predictability effects in reading.Frontiers in cognition · 2026Review
- Multiple predictions during language comprehension: Friends, foes, or indifferent companions?Cognition · 2023Article
- Prediction during language comprehension: what is next?Trends in cognitive sciences · 2023Review
- Read carefully, because this is important! How value-driven strategies impact sentence memory.Memory & cognition · 2023Article
- Strategic Processing of Gender Stereotypes in Sentence Comprehension: An ERP Study.Brain sciences · 2023Article
- Commentary: Rational Adaptation in Lexical Prediction: The Influence of Prediction Strength.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Verb-Mediated Prediction in Bilingual Toddlers.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Adaptation in Predictive Prosodic Processing in Bilinguals.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent studies indicate that the processing of an unexpected word is costly when the initial, disconfirmed prediction was strong. This penalty was suggested to stem from commitment to the strongly predicted word, requiring its inhibition when disconfirmed. Additional studies show that comprehenders rationally adapt their predictions in different situations. In the current study, we hypothesized that since the disconfirmation of strong predictions incurs costs, it would also trigger adaptation mechanisms influencing the processing of subsequent (potentially) strong predictions. In two experiments (in Hebrew and English), participants made speeded congruency judgments on two-word phrases in which the first word was either highly constraining (e.g., "climate," which strongly predicts "change") or not (e.g., "vegetable," which does not have any highly probable completion). We manipulated the proportion of disconfirmed predictions in highly constraining contexts between participants. The results provide additional evidence of the costs associated with the disconfirmation of strong predictions. Moreover, they show a reduction in these costs when participants experience a high proportion of disconfirmed strong predictions throughout the experiment, indicating that participants adjust the strength of their predictions when strong prediction is discouraged. We formulate a Bayesian adaptation model whereby prediction failure cost is weighted by the participant's belief (updated on each trial) about the likelihood of encountering the expected word, and show that it accounts for the trial-by-trial data.
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.