Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42523211›Full record

ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026

Processing at Phrase Boundaries During Self-Paced Reading.

Jenna Hooper, Julia Dengler, David Basilico, Matthew Nelson

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Jenna HooperDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Julia DenglerDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
David BasilicoDivision of Linguistics, Department of English, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Matthew NelsonDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2325-4578

Funding

Neurophysiological mechanisms of language comprehensionK01DC019165 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI Matthew John Nelson · 2022 to 2026
$753k
NIDCD NIH HHS K01 DC019165
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sentence comprehension requires the incremental construction of syntactic structure and semantic interpretation. Prior neural work (Nelson et al., 2017) identified key neural events at major phrase boundaries during sentence comprehension. To investigate a behavioral correlation of these processes, we used self-paced reading to examine the impact of syntactic phase boundaries, semantic congruence, and sentence structure on sentence processing. Participants read object-relative, subject-relative, and canonical control sentences one word at a time and a subsequent comprehension task. Reading times were analyzed relative to phrase boundaries, node-closing operations, and semantic congruence. Object-relative sentences produced the greatest processing difficulty, demonstrated by increased reading times and decreased comprehension accuracy. Reading times peaked at the phrase boundaries, indicating that processing costs are tied to constituent completion rather than individual lexical categories. Reading times also increased with the number of syntactic constituents completed at a phrase boundary. Agent-patient semantic congruence produced its largest effects in object-relative sentences, suggesting that semantic information interacts with syntactic computations when processing demands are greatest. These findings demonstrate that self-paced reading is sensitive to the incremental processing associated with syntactic constituent completion. Processing costs are tied more closely to phrase completion than to individual lexical categories, scale with the amount of syntactic structure completed at a boundary and interact with agent-patient semantic interpretation during object-relative sentence comprehension. Together, these findings support a view of sentence comprehension in which syntactic structure building and semantic interpretation proceed incrementally and interact continuously throughout online language processing.

Identifiers

PMID42523211
PMCPMC13404733

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.