ArticleCognitive neuroscience
Half-listening or zoned out? It's about the same: the impact of attentional state on word processing in context.
Article in Cognitive neuroscience. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neuromodulation of prefrontal cortex promotes deep processing during language comprehension: a tDCS/EEG study.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Language comprehension must require some degree of attentional focus, but how do periods of inattention and/or split attention impact how language is processed? Here EEG was recorded while participants listened to full-length stories, and were periodically asked about whether they were fully attentive, were completely inattentive, or felt that they were in a split attention state. The ERP response to the words immediately preceding these attention questions was examined as a function of participant response, which allowed for the comparison of word processing in each of these attentional states. When participants were on-task, typical N400 effects of lexical frequency (smaller N400 for common compared to less common words), word position (smaller N400 for words appearing late in a sentence compared to words appearing with less preceding context), and surprisal (smaller N400 for relatively expected words compared to relatively unexpected words) were observed. When participants were in a fully inattentive state, the word-level effect of frequency was intact, but the context-dependent effects of word position and surprisal were significantly reduced. Interestingly, the pattern of results when participants were in a split attention state closely matched that of the fully inattentive state. Overall, the results demonstrate how attentional state influences sensitivity to language context during comprehension, and show that the consequences of inattention and split attention on word processing in context are quite similar, at least on the indices measured here.
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.