ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2026
The neural dynamics of political socio-pragmatic violations: an ERP study.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2026. 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
Introduction: Pragmatic violations are known to elicit reliable N400 modulations in event related potentials of electroencephalographic recordings. While this effect has been extensively documented in linguistic contexts, evidence from political discourse remains limited. To address this gap, the present study investigated neural responses to socio-pragmatic coherence in politically framed statements. Methods: Participants read political utterances containing critical target words that were either coherent or incoherent with a preceding description of the producer. To examine whether pragmatic processing could be altered by typographic cues, target words were presented either unmarked or enclosed in quotation marks. Results: Consistent with prior findings, pragmatically incoherent target words elicited a larger negative deflection peaking around 400 ms post-onset than coherent words. Notably, this pattern was reversed when target words were presented in quotation marks. Discussion: We interpret this reversal as evidence that quotation marks signal a rejection or distancing from a word's conventional meaning, thereby altering contextual integration demands. While rejecting the meaning of incoherent terms (e.g.,
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.