Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37309593›Full record

ArticleCognitive neuroscience

Half-listening or zoned out? It's about the same: the impact of attentional state on word processing in context.

Megan A Boudewyn

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 44% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Megan A BoudewynDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA, USA.
University of California, Santa Cruz · US

Funding

Effects of PFC tDCS on Cognitive Control, Attention Lapses and Coordinated Neural Activity in the Theta and Alpha BandsR21MH120383 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ · PI BOUDEWYN, MEGAN A. · 2020 to 2021
$430k
NIMH NIH HHS R21 MH120383
6 · The paper itself

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

ElectroencephalographyEvoked PotentialsAttentionAuditory PerceptionComprehensionFemaleHumansMaleSemanticsWord ProcessingattentioncomprehensionERPslanguage

Identifiers

PMID37309593
PMCPMC11276090
OpenAlexW4380422387

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.