ArticleBrain sciences2022
Effect of Lexical-Semantic Cues during Real-Time Sentence Processing in Aphasia.
Article in Brain sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Eyes on the Pupil Size: Pupillary Response During Sentence Processing in Aphasia.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Modulating Complex Sentence Processing in Aphasia Through Attention and Semantic Networks.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2023Article
- Using lexical semantic cues to mitigate interference effects during real-time sentence processing in aphasia.Journal of neurolinguistics · 2023Article
- The effect of time on lexical and syntactic processing in aphasia.Journal of neurolinguistics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Using a visual world eye-tracking paradigm, we investigated the real-time auditory sentence processing of neurologically unimpaired listeners and individuals with aphasia. We examined whether lexical-semantic cues provided as adjectives of a target noun modulate the encoding and retrieval dynamics of a noun phrase during the processing of complex, non-canonical sentences. We hypothesized that the real-time processing pattern of sentences containing a semantically biased lexical cue (e.g., the venomous snake) would be different than sentences containing unbiased adjectives (e.g., the voracious snake). More specifically, we predicted that the presence of a biased lexical cue would facilitate (1) lexical encoding (i.e., boosted lexical access) of the target noun, snake, and (2) on-time syntactic retrieval or dependency linking (i.e., increasing the probability of on-time lexical retrieval at post-verb gap site) for both groups. For unimpaired listeners, results revealed a difference in the time course of gaze trajectories to the target noun (snake) during lexical encoding and syntactic retrieval in the biased compared to the unbiased condition. In contrast, for the aphasia group, the presence of biased adjectives did not affect the time course of processing the target noun. Yet, at the post-verb gap site, the presence of a semantically biased adjective influenced syntactic re-activation. Our results extend the cue-based parsing model by offering new and valuable insights into the processes underlying sentence comprehension of individuals with aphasia.
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.