2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2010.07.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Age-related and individual differences in the use of prediction during language comprehension

Abstract: During sentence comprehension, older adults are less likely than younger adults to predict features of likely upcoming words. A pair of experiments assessed whether such differences would extend to tasks with reduced working memory demands and time pressures. In Experiment 1, event-related brain potentials were measured as younger and older adults read short phrases cuing antonyms or category exemplars, followed three seconds later by targets that were either congruent or incongruent and, for congruent categor… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

40
265
13

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 255 publications
(318 citation statements)
references
References 66 publications
40
265
13
Order By: Relevance
“…Differences in amplitude, latencies, or scalp distributions reflect the different sub-processes that may underlie the construction of these mental representations (e.g., Brouwer & Hoeks, 2013). Frontal positivities have been found to be elicited in situations where comprehenders' predictions about upcoming lexical items are disconfirmed (DeLong, Urbach, Groppe, & Federmeier, Kutas, & Schul, 2010;Federmeier, Wlotko, Ochoa-Dewald, & Kutas, 2007;Thornhill & van Petten, 2012;Van Petten & Luka, 2012). In the present study, however, both brief and elaborate contexts were quite low-constraining.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 39%
“…Differences in amplitude, latencies, or scalp distributions reflect the different sub-processes that may underlie the construction of these mental representations (e.g., Brouwer & Hoeks, 2013). Frontal positivities have been found to be elicited in situations where comprehenders' predictions about upcoming lexical items are disconfirmed (DeLong, Urbach, Groppe, & Federmeier, Kutas, & Schul, 2010;Federmeier, Wlotko, Ochoa-Dewald, & Kutas, 2007;Thornhill & van Petten, 2012;Van Petten & Luka, 2012). In the present study, however, both brief and elaborate contexts were quite low-constraining.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 39%
“…Previous research has proposed that the frontal positivity reflects the suppression or inhibition of a prediction for a different word or concept (Federmeier et al, 2007;Kutas, 1993) and/or learning signal from which to update future predictions (Federmeier, Kutas, & Schul, 2010). However, existing results have remained mixed with regard to whether the positivity becomes larger when a strong prediction is violated (Federmeier et al, 2007), or if the amplitude of the frontal positivity is reduced when a strongly expected word is encountered (Thornhill & van Petten, 2012).…”
mentioning
confidence: 66%
“…In particular, interactions between visual processing and cognitive processes associated with the syntactic, linguistic, and semantic content of language are normal components of reading (e.g., Jordan & Thomas, 2002;Rayner, 2009) and are likely to involve the influence of spatial frequencies in central vision. Indeed, although the extent to which older adults benefit more from contextual cues during reading is controversial (e.g., Madden, 1988;Stine-Morrow, Miller, Gagne, & Hertzog, 2008;Federmeier & Kutas, 2005;Federmeier, Kutas, & Schul, 2010), loss of sensitivity to spatial frequencies in older age may be offset by a greater use of contextual information, and this is consistent with the view that older readers compensate for processing difficulties by a greater reliance on discourse context (e.g., Stine-Morrow et al, 2008). Moreover, for both young and older adults, when fixations Reading With Filtered Fixations 13 are made during reading, information is also acquired from locations extending outside central vision in the direction of reading, and this parafoveal information is used to pre-process the identity of words before the next saccade is made in their direction (see Rayner 1998Rayner , 2009).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%