ArticleBrain and language2025
Differential effects of working memory constraints on syntactic and semantic processing: Evidence from ERPs.
Article in Brain and language, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Processing long-distance wh-dependency in the Kyengsang dialect of Korean: an ERP study.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Working memory (WM) is essential for language comprehension. It enables us to retain and manipulate information, track context, and recall key details. While WM's role in syntactic processing is well-established, its impact on semantic processing is less clear.WM resources are allocated based on task demands, with syntactic processing-requiring the maintenance and manipulation of hierarchical dependencies-placing higher demands on WM. The present study uses electroencephalography (EEG) to examine how WM constraints impact syntactic and semantic processing. Monolingual English speakers completed a Sentence Judgment Task (SJT). Participants were assigned to two groups: the NonMemory group completed the SJT alone, while the Memory group performed a dual-task version requiring them to memorize a sequence of three words and monitor the sentences for these words. Event-related potential (ERP) results reveal a diminished P600 effect for syntactic violations in the Memory group, suggesting reduced sensitivity to syntactic errors under WM constraints. In contrast, no significant group differences for the N400 were observed for semantic violations, indicating that semantic processing may be less affected by WM limitations. This study advances our understanding of the role of WM in language processing and highlights how WM constraints differentially impact syntactic vs semantic processing. Insights from this research can inform how the brain adapts to varying WM demands, such as in second language processing, where prioritizing semantic over syntactic processing may be necessary to optimize limited cognitive resources.
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.