Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38889141›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Chunk boundaries disrupt dependency processing in an AG: Reconciling incremental processing and discrete sampling.

Chia-Wen Lo, Lars Meyer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Chia-Wen LoResearch Group Language Cycles, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5326-7521
Lars MeyerResearch Group Language Cycles, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

ElectroencephalographyLanguageAdultBrainFemaleHumansLearningMaleSpeechSpeech PerceptionYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID38889141
PMCPMC11185458

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.