Single-word Predictions of Upcoming Language During Comprehension: Evidence from the Cumulative Semantic Interference Task

Overview

Journal Cogn Psychol

Publisher Elsevier

Specialty Psychology

Date 2015 Apr 29

PMID 25917550

Citations 11

Authors

Daniel Kleinman

Elin Runnqvist

Victor S Ferreira

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Comprehenders predict upcoming speech and text on the basis of linguistic input. How many predictions do comprehenders make for an upcoming word? If a listener strongly expects to hear the word "sock", is the word "shirt" partially expected as well, is it actively inhibited, or is it ignored? The present research addressed these questions by measuring the "downstream" effects of prediction on the processing of subsequently presented stimuli using the cumulative semantic interference paradigm. In three experiments, subjects named pictures (sock) that were presented either in isolation or after strongly constraining sentence frames ("After doing his laundry, Mark always seemed to be missing one…"). Naming sock slowed the subsequent naming of the picture shirt - the standard cumulative semantic interference effect. However, although picture naming was much faster after sentence frames, the interference effect was not modulated by the context (bare vs. sentence) in which either picture was presented. According to the only model of cumulative semantic interference that can account for such a pattern of data, this indicates that comprehenders pre-activated and maintained the pre-activation of best sentence completions (sock) but did not maintain the pre-activation of less likely completions (shirt). Thus, comprehenders predicted only the most probable completion for each sentence.

Citing Articles

Context-based facilitation of semantic access follows both logarithmic and linear functions of stimulus probability.

Szewczyk J, Federmeier K J Mem Lang. 2022; 123.

PMID: 36337731 PMC: 9631957. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2021.104311.

Differences in Prediction May Underlie Language Disorder in Autism.

Weismer S, Saffran J Front Psychol. 2022; 13:897187.

PMID: 35756305 PMC: 9221834. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.897187.

Brain potentials reveal differential processing of masculine and feminine grammatical gender in native Spanish speakers.

Beatty-Martinez A, Bruni M, Bajo M, Dussias P Psychophysiology. 2020; 58(3):e13737.

PMID: 33263933 PMC: 9036832. DOI: 10.1111/psyp.13737.

Word predictability effects are linear, not logarithmic: Implications for probabilistic models of sentence comprehension.

Brothers T, Kuperberg G J Mem Lang. 2020; 116.

PMID: 33100508 PMC: 7584137. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2020.104174.

Error-based learning and lexical competition in word production: Evidence from multilingual naming.

Runnqvist E, Strijkers K, Costa A PLoS One. 2019; 14(3):e0213765.

PMID: 30901337 PMC: 6430390. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213765.

References

Nigam A, Hoffman J, Simons R . N400 to semantically anomalous pictures and words. J Cogn Neurosci. 2013; 4(1):15-22. DOI: 10.1162/jocn.1992.4.1.15. View

Navarrete E, Del Prato P, Peressotti F, Mahon B . Lexical Retrieval is not by Competition: Evidence from the Blocked Naming Paradigm. J Mem Lang. 2014; 76:253-272. PMC: 4179210. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2014.05.003. View

Wicha N, Moreno E, Kutas M . Expecting gender: an event related brain potential study on the role of grammatical gender in comprehending a line drawing within a written sentence in Spanish. Cortex. 2003; 39(3):483-508. PMC: 3392191. DOI: 10.1016/s0010-9452(08)70260-0. View

Alario F, Moscoso Del Prado Martin F . On the origin of the "cumulative semantic inhibition" effect. Mem Cognit. 2009; 38(1):57-66. DOI: 10.3758/MC.38.1.57. View

Mulatti C, Peressotti F, Job R, Saunders S, Coltheart M . Reading aloud: the cumulative lexical interference effect. Psychon Bull Rev. 2012; 19(4):662-7. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-012-0269-z. View

Oppenheim G, Dell G, Schwartz M . The dark side of incremental learning: a model of cumulative semantic interference during lexical access in speech production. Cognition. 2009; 114(2):227-52. PMC: 2924492. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.09.007. View

Van Petten C, Luka B . Prediction during language comprehension: benefits, costs, and ERP components. Int J Psychophysiol. 2011; 83(2):176-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.09.015. View

Fischler I, Bloom P . Effects of constraint and validity of sentence contexts on lexical decisions. Mem Cognit. 1985; 13(2):128-39. DOI: 10.3758/bf03197005. View

Kutas M, Hillyard S . Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science. 1980; 207(4427):203-5. DOI: 10.1126/science.7350657. View

10.

Ratcliff R . Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychol Bull. 1993; 114(3):510-32. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.510. View

11.

Ganis G, Kutas M, Sereno M . The search for "common sense": an electrophysiological study of the comprehension of words and pictures in reading. J Cogn Neurosci. 2013; 8(2):89-106. DOI: 10.1162/jocn.1996.8.2.89. View

12.

DeLong K, Urbach T, Kutas M . Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nat Neurosci. 2005; 8(8):1117-21. DOI: 10.1038/nn1504. View

13.

Dell G, Chang F . The P-chain: relating sentence production and its disorders to comprehension and acquisition. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2013; 369(1634):20120394. PMC: 3866424. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2012.0394. View

14.

Kutas M, Hillyard S . Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature. 1984; 307(5947):161-3. DOI: 10.1038/307161a0. View

15.

Ashby J, Rayner K, Clifton C . Eye movements of highly skilled and average readers: differential effects of frequency and predictability. Q J Exp Psychol A. 2005; 58(6):1065-86. DOI: 10.1080/02724980443000476. View

16.

Kroll J . Recognizing words and pictures in sentence contexts: a test of lexical modularity. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1990; 16(5):747-59. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.16.5.747. View

17.

Bates E, DAmico S, Jacobsen T, Szekely A, Andonova E, Devescovi A . Timed picture naming in seven languages. Psychon Bull Rev. 2003; 10(2):344-80. PMC: 3392189. DOI: 10.3758/bf03196494. View

18.

Levelt W, Roelofs A, Meyer A . A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behav Brain Sci. 2001; 22(1):1-38; discussion 38-75. DOI: 10.1017/s0140525x99001776. View

19.

Barr D, Levy R, Scheepers C, Tily H . Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. J Mem Lang. 2014; 68(3). PMC: 3881361. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001. View

20.

Lau E, Almeida D, Hines P, Poeppel D . A lexical basis for N400 context effects: evidence from MEG. Brain Lang. 2009; 111(3):161-72. PMC: 2783912. DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2009.08.007. View