2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.01.018
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Linguistic networks associated with lexical, semantic and syntactic predictability in reading: A fixation-related fMRI study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
17
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 153 publications
0
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Capturing the gradedness of predictions is important both theoretically and methodologically. Graded predictions appear to be characteristic of adult language processing; for instance, on the basis of a timed sentence completion task, Staub, Grant, Astheimer, & Cohen (2015) showed that adults activate many possible continuations in parallel (see also Carter, Foster, Muncy, & Luke, 2019; Luke & Christianson, 2016; Smith & Levy, 2013) Thus, since expert language users predict in a highly graded fashion, we would expect children whose predictions are more graded (and thus more adult‐like), to be more linguistically advanced. Accordingly, Mani et al (2016) found that 2‐year‐olds with larger expressive vocabularies were more likely to predict both words strongly associated with a sentence context and words that were only weakly associated with it, compared to an unassociated word.…”
Section: How Might Prediction Relate To Language Learning?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Capturing the gradedness of predictions is important both theoretically and methodologically. Graded predictions appear to be characteristic of adult language processing; for instance, on the basis of a timed sentence completion task, Staub, Grant, Astheimer, & Cohen (2015) showed that adults activate many possible continuations in parallel (see also Carter, Foster, Muncy, & Luke, 2019; Luke & Christianson, 2016; Smith & Levy, 2013) Thus, since expert language users predict in a highly graded fashion, we would expect children whose predictions are more graded (and thus more adult‐like), to be more linguistically advanced. Accordingly, Mani et al (2016) found that 2‐year‐olds with larger expressive vocabularies were more likely to predict both words strongly associated with a sentence context and words that were only weakly associated with it, compared to an unassociated word.…”
Section: How Might Prediction Relate To Language Learning?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The mechanisms of prediction updating that impact the processing of upcoming wordsan event-related potential study on sentence comprehension It has been widely demonstrated that predictable words are easier to process: people are faster to read, name, or make lexical decisions on contextually supported words (e.g. Duffy, Henderson, & Morris, 1989;Ehrlich & Rayner, 1981;Kleiman, 1980;McClelland & O'Regan, 1981;Rayner & Well, 1996;Schwanenflugel & LaCount, 1988;Schwanenflugel & Shoben, 1985;Schwanenflugel & White, 1991); such words also elicit a reduced N400 ERP component 1 (see Kutas, DeLong, & Smith, 2011 for a review) and evoke less metabolic activity in the left temporal cortex (Carter, Foster, Muncy, & Luke, 2019;Frank & Willems, 2017;Henderson, Choi, Lowder, & Ferreira, 2016; (Schuster, Hawelka, Hutzler, Kronbichler, & Richlan, 2016;Willems, Frank, Nijhof, Hagoort, & van den Bosch, 2016). One of the challenges in the early days was clearly demonstrating that readers or listeners predict 2 upcoming parts of a text or message.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It has been widely demonstrated that predictable words are easier to process: people are faster to read, name, or make lexical decisions on contextually supported words (e.g. Duffy, Henderson, & Morris, 1989;Ehrlich & Rayner, 1981;Kleiman, 1980;McClelland & O'Regan, 1981;Rayner & Well, 1996;Schwanenflugel & LaCount, 1988;Schwanenflugel & Shoben, 1985;Schwanenflugel & White, 1991); such words also elicit a reduced N400 ERP component 1 (see Kutas, DeLong, & Smith, 2011 for a review) and evoke less metabolic activity in the left temporal cortex (Carter, Foster, Muncy, & Luke, 2019;Frank & Willems, 2017;Henderson, Choi, Lowder, & Ferreira, 2016; (Schuster, Hawelka, Hutzler, Kronbichler, & Richlan, 2016;Willems, Frank, Nijhof, Hagoort, & van den Bosch, 2016). One of the challenges in the early days was clearly demonstrating that readers or listeners predict 2 upcoming parts of a text or message.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%