Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37556941›Full record

ArticleCognition2023

Inhibition of lexical representations after violated semantic predictions.

Jina Kim, Jan R Wessel, Kristi Hendrickson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognition, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

3 authors.

Jina KimDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Iowa, 250 Hawkins Drive, 52242 Iowa City, IA, USA. Electronic address: jina-kim@uiowa.edu.
Jan R WesselDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Iowa, 376 Psychological and Brain Sciences Building, 340 Iowa Avenue, 52240, Iowa City, IA, USA; Department of Neurology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, 250 Hawkins Drive, 52242, Iowa City, IA, USA. Electronic address: jan-wessel@uiowa.edu.
Kristi HendricksonDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Iowa, 250 Hawkins Drive, 52242 Iowa City, IA, USA. Electronic address: kristi-hendrickson@uiowa.edu.

Funding

Language outcomes, mechanisms, and trajectories in adults with and without Developmental Language DisorderR01DC020143 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI Kristi Hendrickson · 2022 to 2026
$2.9M
The Role of a Neural Mechanism for Inhibitory Control in Cognitive FlexibilityR01NS102201 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI WESSEL, JAN R · 2018 to 2022
$1.9M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC020143NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS102201
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a consensus that humans predict upcoming words during sentence processing. Prediction makes language comprehension fast and efficient if this anticipatory processing is accurate. However, often times, predictions are not correct. There is a lack of research investigating the cognitive operations at play when predictions are violated. According to several proposals, such violations lead to an inhibition of the predicted word to facilitate the integration of the unexpected word. Across four experiments, we have tested whether predicted words are indeed inhibited when listeners encounter unexpected stimuli, and whether the linguistic status (word or sound) and semantic congruency of a word (plausible or implausible) influences this purported inhibitory process. Using a Cross-Modal Lexical Priming paradigm, we showed that when predictions are violated, the activation of the predicted word is inhibited, resulting in increased reaction times. These inhibitory effects appear to be language specific, in that they are only observed after unexpected words, as opposed to non-linguistic sounds (tones). However, contrary to a long-held assumption in the field of sentence processing, inhibitory effects are not modulated by the semantic congruency of the unexpected word (i.e., whether the unexpected word is plausible within the sentence context). Indeed, in the current study, any linguistic information that violated listeners' semantic prediction resulted in the inhibition of the predicted word. Thus, the current findings are more compatible with a view in which unexpected linguistic events that are meaningful engage inhibitory processes with the specific purpose of inhibiting the predicted, though out-of-date, word.

Indexed as

LanguageSemanticsHumansLinguisticsReaction TimeInhibitionLexical decisionPredictionSemantic violationSentence processing

Identifiers

PMID37556941
PMCPMC13403742

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.