ArticleCognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience2025
Common sources of linguistic conflict engage domain-general conflict control mechanisms during language comprehension.
Article in Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 2025. 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
The current study tested the hypothesis that lexical ambiguity, a common source of representational conflict during language comprehension, engages domain-general cognitive control processes that are reflected by theta-band oscillations in scalp-recorded electroencephalograms (EEG). In Experiment 1, we examined the neural signature elicited by lexically ambiguous compared to unambiguous words during sentence comprehension. The results showed that midfrontal theta activity was increased in response to linguistic conflict (lexical ambiguity). In Experiment 2, we examined postconflict adaptation effects by comparing temporarily ambiguous sentences that followed previous instances of conflict (other temporarily ambiguous sentences) to those that followed a previous low-conflict (unambiguous) sentence. A midfrontal theta effect associated with linguistic conflict was again found in Experiment 2, such that theta was increased for temporarily ambiguous sentences that followed previous low-conflict (unambiguous) sentences compared with those that followed previous high-conflict (temporarily ambiguous) sentences. In both experiments, facilitated lexical semantic processing was also observed for words that came after the point of conflict, which may reflect a downstream "benefit" of cognitive control engagement. Overall, our results provide novel insights into the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying conflict processing in language comprehension and suggest that the same neural computations are involved in processing nonlinguistic and linguistic conflict.
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.