ArticlePloS one2024
Chunk boundaries disrupt dependency processing in an AG: Reconciling incremental processing and discrete sampling.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Language is rooted in our ability to compose: We link words together, fusing their meanings. Links are not limited to neighboring words but often span intervening words. The ability to process these non-adjacent dependencies (NADs) conflicts with the brain's sampling of speech: We consume speech in chunks that are limited in time, containing only a limited number of words. It is unknown how we link words together that belong to separate chunks. Here, we report that we cannot-at least not so well. In our electroencephalography (EEG) study, 37 human listeners learned chunks and dependencies from an artificial grammar (AG) composed of syllables. Multi-syllable chunks to be learned were equal-sized, allowing us to employ a frequency-tagging approach. On top of chunks, syllable streams contained NADs that were either confined to a single chunk or crossed a chunk boundary. Frequency analyses of the EEG revealed a spectral peak at the chunk rate, showing that participants learned the chunks. NADs that cross boundaries were associated with smaller electrophysiological responses than within-chunk NADs. This shows that NADs are processed readily when they are confined to the same chunk, but not as well when crossing a chunk boundary. Our findings help to reconcile the classical notion that language is processed incrementally with recent evidence for discrete perceptual sampling of speech. This has implications for language acquisition and processing as well as for the general view of syntax in human language.
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.