↓ Skip to main content

Effects of prediction and contextual support on lexical processing: Prediction takes precedence

Overview of attention for article published in Cognition, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
136 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
231 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effects of prediction and contextual support on lexical processing: Prediction takes precedence
Published in
Cognition, December 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.10.017
Pubmed ID
Authors

Trevor Brothers, Tamara Y. Swaab, Matthew J. Traxler

Abstract

Readers may use contextual information to anticipate and pre-activate specific lexical items during reading. However, prior studies have not clearly dissociated the effects of accurate lexical prediction from other forms of contextual facilitation such as plausibility or semantic priming. In this study, we measured electrophysiological responses to predicted and unpredicted target words in passages providing varying levels of contextual support. This method was used to isolate the neural effects of prediction from other potential contextual influences on lexical processing. While both prediction and discourse context influenced ERP amplitudes within the time range of the N400, the effects of prediction occurred much more rapidly, preceding contextual facilitation by approximately 100ms. In addition, a frontal, post-N400 positivity (PNP) was modulated by both prediction accuracy and the overall plausibility of the preceding passage. These results suggest a unique temporal primacy for prediction in facilitating lexical access. They also suggest that the frontal PNP may index the costs of revising discourse representations following an incorrect lexical prediction.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 231 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
Germany 2 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 221 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 58 25%
Student > Master 39 17%
Researcher 25 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 16 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 6%
Other 47 20%
Unknown 31 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 78 34%
Linguistics 65 28%
Neuroscience 16 7%
Arts and Humanities 7 3%
Philosophy 4 2%
Other 18 8%
Unknown 43 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 December 2014.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Cognition
#2,924
of 3,272 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#273,389
of 368,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognition
#51
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,272 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.4. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 368,077 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.