ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2026
From structure to sequence: A multinomial processing tree model of syntactic encoding.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Distinct Patterns of Syntactic Errors Doubly Dissociate in Chronic Poststroke Aphasia.Journal of cognitive neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Two-stage models of grammatical encoding posit that sentence production unfolds in two sequential steps: the construction of a hierarchical syntactic structure, followed by its linearization into a sequence suitable for articulation. While widely accepted in psycho- and neurolinguistics, such models lack formal computational implementations. Here, we introduce a novel multinomial processing tree (MPT) model that operationalizes this two-stage framework to explain syntactic error patterns in individuals with aphasia. Drawing on discourse samples annotated for distinct error types, we fit an MPT model to estimate individual abilities at each processing stage. These ability estimates correlated with observed error rates and localized to distinct neural substrates: hierarchical encoding ability was linked to the posterior superior temporal sulcus and parietal cortex, linearization to posterior inferior frontal regions, and omission-related processes to more dorsal frontal regions and the underlying white matter. Our findings support a neurocomputational dissociation between hierarchical and linear stages of grammatical encoding, aligning with prior lesion-symptom mapping and theoretical accounts of expressive agrammatism and paragrammatism. This work represents the first computational instantiation of a two-stage model of syntactic production, bridging formal modeling and lesion analysis to advance our understanding of the architecture and breakdown of grammatical encoding.
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.