ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024
Delayed predictive inference integration with and revision by low-competitive inference alternatives in Chinese narrative text reading.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When readers encounter information conflicting with the predictive inferences made earlier, they may update the outdated ones with new ones, a process known as predictive inference revision. The current study examined the revision of disconfirmed predictive inferences by the primarily weakly activated, thus low-competitive inference alternatives during Chinese narrative text reading among Chinese native speakers. We conducted an event-related brain potential (ERP) experiment to study the predictive inference revision with increasingly supportive information for the low-competitive predictive inference alternatives. It serves as the very first attempts to study the predictive inference revision mechanisms by combining a larger range of ERP components, including frontal-Post-N400-Positivity (f-PNP) as an index of revision to examine the influences of the alternative inferences at later stages of reading comprehension. Our results showed that readers could detect inconsistent information (P300), disconfirm the incorrect predictive inferences before successfully integrating the low-competitive alternative predictive inferences with their current situation model (N400), engaging themselves in a second-pass reanalysis process incurring processing costs (P600), and revising the disconfirmed predictive inferences (f-PNP) at a later stage of reading comprehension. Results of this study are supportive of relevant theories in assuming that predictive inference revision does not happen immediately upon encountering conflicting information but happens slowly and incrementally. Our results also unfold the post-revision mechanisms by suggesting the remaining activation and lingering influences of the disconfirmed inferences in the forthcoming reading process.
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.