ReviewTopics in cognitive science2025
Language Production and Prediction in a Parallel Activation Model.
Review in Topics in cognitive science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spatiotemporal dynamics of lexical and morphosyntactic planning during language production revealed by magnetoencephalography.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Article
- Neural activity flows through cortical subnetworks during speech production.Cell reports · 2026Article
- The influence of prediction on bilingual language production: evidence from semantic classifier congruency.Psychological research · 2025Article
- The Time Course of Phonological Encoding: Insights from Time-Resolved MVPA.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Article
- Shared phonological networks in frontal and temporal cortex for language production and comprehension.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2025Article
- Decoding words during sentence production with ECoG reveals syntactic role encoding and structure-dependent temporal dynamics.Communications psychology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Standard models of lexical production assume that speakers access representations of meaning, grammar, and different aspects of sound in a roughly sequential manner (whether or not they admit cascading or interactivity). In contrast, we review evidence for a parallel activation model in which these representations are accessed in parallel. According to this account, word learning involves the binding of the meaning, grammar, and sound of a word into a single representation. This representation is then activated as a whole during production, and so all linguistic components are available simultaneously. We then note that language comprehension involves extensive use of prediction and argue that comprehenders use production mechanisms to determine (roughly) what they would say next if they were speaking. So far, theories of prediction-by-production have assumed sequential lexical production. We therefore reinterpret such evidence in terms of parallel lexical production.
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.