4.4 Review

Prediction during language comprehension: Benefits, costs, and ERP components

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY
卷 83, 期 2, 页码 176-190

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.09.015

关键词

Prediction; Sentence; Event-related potential; N400; P600; P300

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Because context has a robust influence on the processing of subsequent words, the idea that readers and listeners predict upcoming words has attracted research attention, but prediction has fallen in and out of favor as a likely factor in normal comprehension. We note that the common sense of this word includes both benefits for confirmed predictions and costs for disconfirmed predictions. The N400 component of the event-related potential (ERP) reliably indexes the benefits of semantic context Evidence that the N400 is sensitive to the other half of prediction - a cost for failure - is largely absent from the literature. This raises the possibility that prediction is not a good description of what comprehenders do. However, it need not be the case that the benefits and costs of prediction are evident in a single ERP component Research outside of language processing indicates that late positive components of the ERP are very sensitive to disconfirmed predictions. We review late positive components elicited by words that are potentially more or less predictable from preceding sentence context. This survey suggests that late positive responses to unexpected words are fairly common, but that these consist of two distinct components with different scalp topographies, one associated with semantically incongruent words and one associated with congruent words. We conclude with a discussion of the possible cognitive correlates of these distinct late positivities and their relationships with more thoroughly characterized ERP components, namely the P300, P600 response to syntactic errors, and the old/new effect in studies of recognition memory. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据