ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2025
Understanding implicature as an inner simulation of the speaker's context retrieval.
Article in Frontiers in human 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In everyday conversation, speakers often convey their intentions indirectly, requiring listeners to infer meaning beyond the literal content of the utterance. For example, the question "Do you know the way to the station?" implies a request such as "Please tell me the way to the station." Although pragmatic inference is generally assumed to support the comprehension of such implicit intentions, the underlying neural mechanisms remain poorly understood. This study investigated the cognitive and neural processes involved in comprehending indirect utterances, using electroencephalography (EEG) recorded while participants listened to spoken dialogues. We manipulated both the contextual explicitness (explicit vs. implicit) and the temporal reference (present intention vs. past experience) of the speaker's implicit intentions. EEG analyses revealed a significant effect of contextual explicitness only in conversations involving past experiences. Specifically, in the implicit context condition relative to the explicit condition, we observed a significant positive deflection in the event-related potential and significant suppression in the θ and β frequency bands of event-related spectral perturbation. The β-band suppression was interpreted as reflecting perspective-taking by the listener. To further investigate the neural mechanisms involved, we analyzed effective connectivity among 28 regions of interest-previously identified in fMRI studies of indirect utterance comprehension-using source-localized EEG data. In the implicit context condition for past-experience conversations, we found a significant increase in information flow to the parahippocampal gyrus, suggesting a role for autobiographical memory retrieval. Multiple regression analyses showed that this connectivity was significantly associated with subscores on the Autism-Spectrum Quotient, particularly the Imagination and Communication subscales-both related to theory of mind (ToM). These findings suggest that autobiographical memory retrieval is guided by second-order ToM processes, enabling listeners to internally simulate the speaker's context retrieval. Our results challenge traditional linguistic models that conceptualize the comprehension of implicit intentions as a stepwise construction of propositional representations. Instead, they support a pragmatic inference as context search model, in which listeners actively search for a context that coherently integrates the indirect utterance with the preceding discourse.
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.