| Literature DB >> 29631695 |
Mante S Nieuwland1,2, Stephen Politzer-Ahles3,4, Evelien Heyselaar5, Katrien Segaert5, Emily Darley6, Nina Kazanina6, Sarah Von Grebmer Zu Wolfsthurn6, Federica Bartolozzi2, Vita Kogan2, Aine Ito2,4, Diane Mézière2, Dale J Barr7, Guillaume A Rousselet7, Heather J Ferguson8, Simon Busch-Moreno9, Xiao Fu9, Jyrki Tuomainen9, Eugenia Kulakova10, E Matthew Husband4, David I Donaldson11, Zdenko Kohút12, Shirley-Ann Rueschemeyer12, Falk Huettig1.
Abstract
Do people routinely pre-activate the meaning and even the phonological form of upcoming words? The most acclaimed evidence for phonological prediction comes from a 2005 Nature Neuroscience publication by DeLong, Urbach and Kutas, who observed a graded modulation of electrical brain potentials (N400) to nouns and preceding articles by the probability that people use a word to continue the sentence fragment ('cloze'). In our direct replication study spanning 9 laboratories (N=334), pre-registered replication-analyses and exploratory Bayes factor analyses successfully replicated the noun-results but, crucially, not the article-results. Pre-registered single-trial analyses also yielded a statistically significant effect for the nouns but not the articles. Exploratory Bayesian single-trial analyses showed that the article-effect may be non-zero but is likely far smaller than originally reported and too small to observe without very large sample sizes. Our results do not support the view that readers routinely pre-activate the phonological form of predictable words.Entities:
Keywords: N400; human; language comprehension; neuroscience; prediction
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29631695 PMCID: PMC5896878 DOI: 10.7554/eLife.33468
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Elife ISSN: 2050-084X Impact factor: 8.140