Projects per year
Current psycholinguistic theory proffers prediction as a central, explanatory mechanism in language processing (e.g., Pickering & Garrod, 2013). However, widely-replicated prediction effects may not mean that prediction is necessary in language processing (Huettig & Mani, 2016). As a case in point, Martin et al. (2013) reported ERP evidence for prediction in native speakers but not in non-native speakers. Articles mismatching an expected noun (e.g., “a” when people expect “umbrella”) elicited larger negativity in the N400 time window compared to articles matching the expected noun in native speakers, but not in non-native speakers. We attempted to replicate these findings in two experiments, but found no evidence for prediction irrespective of language nativeness. We argue that pre-activation of phonological form of upcoming nouns, as evidenced in article-elicited effects, may not be a robust phenomenon. We conclude that a view of prediction as a necessary computation in language comprehension must be re-evaluated.
- language comprehension
FingerprintDive into the research topics of 'How robust are prediction effects in language comprehension? Failure to replicate article-elicited N400 effects'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.
- 1 Finished
Brain-to-brain coupling during dialogue: What sentence fragments can reveal about'joint' mental representations.
Martin, A. E.
1/10/13 → 30/09/17