ArticleCognition2023
Multiple predictions during language comprehension: Friends, foes, or indifferent companions?
Article in Cognition, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Apical integration theory provides a neural basis for understanding disorganization and consciousness in the schizophrenias.Current research in neurobiology · 2026Article
- Neural tracking of surprisal and semantic distance in naturalistic movie viewing.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Fixation-related potentials reveal that confusing program code elicits a late frontal positivity.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Evaluating the compatibility of predictive coding as a model of linguistic predictability effects in reading.Frontiers in cognition · 2026Review
- The Temporal Dynamics of the Labeling Algorithm During Natural Language Comprehension: Neural Evidence for Phrase Grammatical Type Generation.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026Article
- Distinct ERP signatures for singular "they" and gender violations.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Sentence processing by humans and machines: Large language models as a tool to better understand human reading.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Review
- Hyper-speed meaning and form predictions: An EEG-based representational similarity analysis.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
- Uncovering patterns of semantic predictability in sentence processing.Journal of memory and language · 2025Article
- Anticipatory prediction in older readers.Memory & cognition · 2025Article
- Dynamics of learning new words from context.Journal of experimental psychology. General · 2025Article
- Intimate relationships regulate female brain activity in a competitive context: evidence from EEG and functional connectivity analysis.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2024Article
- A predictive coding model of the N400.Cognition · 2024Article
- Predictive language processing: integrating comprehension and production, and what atypical populations can tell us.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
To comprehend language, we continually use prior context to pre-activate expected upcoming information, resulting in facilitated processing of incoming words that confirm these predictions. But what are the consequences of disconfirming prior predictions? To address this question, most previous studies have examined unpredictable words appearing in contexts that constrain strongly for a single continuation. However, during natural language processing, it is far more common to encounter contexts that constrain for multiple potential continuations, each with some probability. Here, we ask whether and how pre-activating both higher and lower probability alternatives influences the processing of the lower probability incoming word. One possibility is that, similar to language production, there is continuous pressure to select the higher-probability pre-activated alternative through competitive inhibition. During comprehension, this would result in relative costs in processing the lower probability target. A second possibility is that if the two pre-activated alternatives share semantic features, they mutually enhance each other's pre-activation. This would result in greater facilitation in processing the lower probability target. To distinguish between these accounts, we recorded ERPs as participants read three-sentence scenarios that constrained either for a single word or for two potential continuations - a higher probability expected candidate and a lower probability second-best candidate. We found no evidence that competitive pre-activation between the expected and second-best candidates resulted in costs in processing the second-best target, either during lexico-semantic processing (indexed by the N400) or at later stages of processing (indexed by a later frontal positivity). Instead, we found only benefits of pre-activating multiple alternatives, with evidence of enhanced graded facilitation on lower-probability targets that were semantically related to a higher-probability pre-activated alternative. These findings are consistent with a previous eye-tracking study by Luke and Christianson (2016, Cogn Psychol) using corpus-based materials. They have significant theoretical implications for models of predictive language processing, indicating that routine graded prediction in language comprehension does not operate through the same competitive mechanisms that are engaged in language production. Instead, our results align more closely with hierarchical probabilistic accounts of language comprehension, such as predictive coding.
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.