ArticleJournal of experimental psychology. General2025
Lexical inhibition after semantic violations recruits a domain-general inhibitory control mechanism.
Article in Journal of experimental psychology. General, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Expectation Violation Influences Neural Responses to the Accessibility of Cognitions Related to Suicide and Life: A Simultaneous EEG-fNIRS Study.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Prediction During Within- and Cross-Language Phrase Comprehension: Evidence from Eye-Tracking.Journal of cognition · 2026Article
- Neural signatures and personalized neuromodulation in a subject experiencing context-dependent inhibitory control deficits.NeuroImage · 2025Article
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
Abstract
Language processing is incremental. As language signals-for example, words in a sentence-unfold, humans predict and activate likely upcoming input to facilitate comprehension. Prediction not only accelerates understanding but also prompts reassessment in the case of prediction error, fostering learning and refining comprehension skills. Therefore, it is paramount to understand what happens when linguistic predictions are violated-for example, when a sentence ends in an unpredicted word. One theory, which we test here, is that the originally predicted word is actively inhibited after semantic violations. Furthermore, we tested whether this purported lexical inhibition process is achieved by a domain-general mechanism-that is, one that also inhibits other processes (e.g., movement). We combined a semantic violation task, in which highly constrained sentences primed specific words but sometimes continued otherwise, with a motoric stop-signal task. Across two experiments, semantic violations significantly impaired simultaneous action-stopping. This implies that lexical and motor inhibition share the same process. In support of this view, multivariate decoding of electroencephalographic recordings showed early overlap in neural processing between action-stopping (motor inhibition) and semantic violations (lexical inhibition). Moreover, a known signature of motor inhibition (the stop-signal P3) was reduced after this initial overlap period, further suggesting the presence of a bottleneck due to shared processing. These findings show that semantic violations trigger inhibitory processing and suggest that this lexical inhibition recruits a domain-general inhibitory control mechanism. This provides a new perspective on long-standing debates in psycholinguistics, extends the range of a well-characterized cognitive control mechanism into the linguistic domain, and offers support for recent neurobiological models of domain-general inhibitory control. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
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.