Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41588188›Full record

ArticleCognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience2026

Metaphor comprehension in neurotypical adults: A scoping review of event-related potential studies.

Laura Baiocco, Aneta Kielar, Vicky T Lai

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Laura BaioccoDepartment of Psychology, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA. laurabaiocco@arizona.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-5221-257X
Aneta KielarDepartment of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Vicky T LaiDepartment of Psychology, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA. tzuyinlai@arizona.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this scoping review, we examined event-related potential (ERP) studies on verbal metaphor processing in neurotypical adults. While it is commonly found that metaphors elicit a more negative N400 (a negativity in the 200-600 ms time window post word onset) than literal counterparts, results vary greatly in the 500-1,000 ms time window. Some studies report a late positivity (LP) and others late negativity (LN). Our main objectives were to explain the metaphor-related N400 and to investigate methodological choices that could account for the varying findings at the later time window. For this, we focused on stimulus properties (novelty, concreteness, emotionality, and context) and task demands. We reviewed 62 different experiments published in 52 research papers that have 1) investigated verbal metaphor comprehension in a healthy, neurotypical adult populations, 2) used ERPs, 3) included a literal condition for comparison, 4) presented original data, and 5) were written in English. Our review indicates that the N400 is more commonly found for novel metaphors compared to literal counterparts, especially when presented within limited context, reflecting meaning retrieval effort. For the later time window, while the exact function of the LP is still unclear, based on the available evidence, we associate it with contextual richness and stimulus emotionality. Finally, we suggest that the LN is associated with re-analysis or evaluation of stimuli prompted by metaphor novelty and task complexity.

Indexed as

BrainComprehensionEvoked PotentialsMetaphorAdultElectroencephalographyHumansEvent-related potentialsLate negativityLate positivityMetaphorN400Nonliteral language

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.