ArticlePsychophysiology2025
In the Words of Others: ERP Evidence of Speaker-Specific Phonological Prediction.
Article in Psychophysiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- In the Words of Others: ERP Evidence of Speaker-Specific Phonological Prediction.Psychophysiology · 2025Article
- Time-frequency feature calculation of multi-stage audiovisual neural processing via electroencephalogram microstates.Frontiers in neuroscience · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Prediction models usually assume that highly constraining contexts allow the pre-activation of phonological information. However, the evidence for phonological prediction is mixed and controversial. In this study, we implement a paradigm that capitalizes on the phonological errors produced by L2 speakers to investigate whether specific phonological predictions are made based on speaker identity. L1 Italian speakers were asked to read sentence fragments, after which a final word was spoken by either an L1- or an L2-accented speaker. The spoken final word could be predictable or not, depending on the sentence context. The identity of the speaker (L1- vs. L2-accented) may or may not be cued by an image of the face of the speaker. Our main analysis indicated that cueing the speaker identity was associated with a larger N400 predictability effect, possibly reflecting an easier processing of predictable words due to phonological pre-activation. As visual inspection of the waveforms revealed a more complex pattern than initially anticipated, we used Temporal EFA (Exploratory Factor Analysis) to identify and disentangle the ERP components underlying the effect observed. In the L1-accent condition, predictable words elicited a posterior positivity relative to unpredictable words, possibly reflecting a P3b response, which was more pronounced when the speaker identity was cued. In the L2-accent condition, cueing the speaker identity was associated with a smaller N1 and a larger P3a response. These results suggest that phonological prediction for L1- and L2-accented speakers likely involves different cognitive processes.
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.