ArticleNeuropsychologia2022
Wrong or right? Brain potentials reveal hemispheric asymmetries to semantic relations during word-by-word sentence reading as a function of (fictional) knowledge.
Article in Neuropsychologia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A mapping-knowledge-domain analysis of ERP research on language processing.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Pooled it
- Late Positive Potentials as an Index of "Desirably Difficult" Learning Processes Engaged During Language Comprehension: ERP Evidence From Studies of Domain Knowledge.Psychophysiology · 2026Article
- The Intriguingly Social N400 of Preverbal Infants.Developmental neurobiology · 2026Article
- Regression analyses of event-related brain potentials dissociate general reading experience and domain-specific knowledge sources during language comprehension.Frontiers in cognition · 2026Article
- Children with lower language skill engage additional brain mechanisms in both hemispheres during sentence comprehension.Research square · 2025Article
- Diffindo! Precise language comprehension in older adulthood revealed by event-related brain potential studies of domain knowledge.Cognition · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
How does individual-level variation in experience and knowledge influence neural mechanisms important for real-time language comprehension? We used event-related brain potentials (ERPs) combined with lateralized visual field (VF) presentation of sentence-final words to examine asymmetries in hemispheric processing as individuals who varied in their knowledge of the fictional world of Harry Potter (HP) read sentences about general topics and HP. HP sentence endings were either contextually supported, unrelated anomalies, or semantically related anomalies. Amongst HP experts, we observed contextual support effects with presentation to both left and right VFs, but related anomaly effects only with presentation to the left VF (right hemisphere). Our findings are in line with accounts in which the left hemisphere (LH) activates relatively narrow/specific semantic information and the RH activates a broader range of semantic relations, including those relating to the construction of mental/situation models, as individuals attempt to comprehend sentences, one word at a time. We suggest that RH-biased hemispheric asymmetries in processing related (but linguistically inappropriate) words in written sentences may emerge as a function of each individual's degree of relevant knowledge. We tentatively hypothesize that content experts may optimize hemispheric differences in scope of semantic activation to maximize both precision (in the LH) and flexibility (in the RH) during language comprehension.
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.