Reversing expectations during discourse comprehension

References

• Altmann, G., & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30, 191–238. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(88)90020-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baggio, G., Van Lambalgen, M., & Hagoort, P. (2008). Computing and recomputing discourse models: An ERP study. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(1), 36–53. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2008.02.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becker, C. A. (1980). Semantic context effects in visual word recognition: An analysis of semantic strategies. Memory & Cognition, 8, 493–512. doi:10.3758/BF03213769
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becker, C. A. (1985). What do we really know about semantic context effects during reading? In D. Besner, T. G. Waller, & E. M. McKinnon (Eds.), Reading research: Advances in theory and practice (Vol. 5, pp. 125–169). Toronto: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and linguistic meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2008). An alternative perspective on “semantic P600” effects in language comprehension. Brain Research Reviews, 59, 55–73. doi:10.1016/j.brainresrev.2008.05.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bott, O. (2010). The processing of events. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, A. (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 181–204. doi:10.1017/S0140525X12000477
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corley, M., MacGregor, L. J., & Donaldson, D. I. (2007). It’s the way that you, er, say it: Hesitations in speech affect language comprehension. Cognition, 105, 658–668. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2006.10.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coulson, S., & Kutas, M. (2001). Getting it: Human event-related brain response to jokes in good and poor comprehenders. Neuroscience Letters, 316(2), 71–74. doi:10.1016/S0304-3940(01)02387-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coulson, S., & Van Petten, C. (2007). A special role for the right hemisphere in metaphor comprehension: An ERP study. Brain Research, 1146, 128–145. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2007.03.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Courville, A. C., Daw, N. D., & Touretzky, D. S. (2006). Bayesian theories of conditioning in a changing world. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 294–300. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.05.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Grauwe, S., Swain, A., Holcomb, P. J., Ditman, T., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2010). Electrophysiological insights into the processing of nominal metaphors. Neuropsychologia, 48, 1965–1984. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.03.017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeLong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., Groppe, D. M., & Kutas, M. (2011) Overlapping dual ERP responses to low cloze probability sentence continuations. Psychophysiology, 48, 1203–1207. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01199.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ditman, T., Holcomb, P. J., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2007). An investigation of concurrent ERP and self-paced reading methodologies. Psychophysiology, 44, 927–935. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00593.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farmer, T. A., Brown, M., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2013). Prediction, explanation, and the role of generative models in language processing. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 211–212. doi:10.1017/S0140525X12002312
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Federmeier, K. D., & Kutas, M. (1999). A rose by any other name: Long-term memory structure and sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 469–495. doi:10.1006/jmla.1999.2660
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Federmeier, K. D., Wlotko, E. W., De Ochoa-Dewald, E., & Kutas, M. (2007). Multiple effects of sentential constraint on word processing. Brain Research, 1146, 75–84. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2006.06.101
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feldman, N. H., Griffiths, T. L., & Morgan, J. L. (2009). The influence of categories on perception: Explaining the perceptual magnet effect as optimal statistical inference. Psychological Review, 116, 752–782. doi:10.1037/a0017196
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferguson, H. J., & Breheny, R. (2011). Eye movements reveal the time-course of anticipating behaviour based on complex, conflicting desires. Cognition, 119, 179–196. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.01.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferguson, H. J., & Sanford, A. J. (2008). Anomalies in real and counterfactual worlds: An eye-movement investigation. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 609–626. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.06.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferguson, H. J., Sanford, A. J., & Leuthold, H. (2008). Eye-movements and ERPs reveal the time course of processing negation and remitting counterfactual worlds. Brain Research, 1236, 113–125. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2008.07.099
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferretti, T. R., Kutas, M., & McRae, K. (2007). Verb aspect and the activation of event knowledge. Cognition, 33, 182–196. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.33.1.182
   Google Scholar
• Fillmore, C. (2006). Frame semantics. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics. Basic readings (pp. 373–400). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ( Originally published in Linguistics in the morning calm. 1982. Linguistic society of Korea (ed.), Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company, pp. 111–137).
   Google Scholar
• Fine, A. B., Jaeger, T. F., Farmer, T. A., & Qian, T. (2013). Rapid expectation adaptation during syntactic comprehension. PLoS One, 8(10): e77661. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0077661
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forster, K. I. (1981). Priming and the effects of sentence and lexical contexts on naming time: Evidence for autonomous lexical processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33, 465–495. doi:10.1080/14640748108400804
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friston, K. (2005). A theory of cortical responses. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 360, 815–836.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenhouse, S. W., & Geisser, S. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika, 24, 95–112. doi:10.1007/BF02289823
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 41–58). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Griffiths, T. L., Kemp, C., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2008). Bayesian models of cognition. In Ron Sun (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of computational cognitive modeling (pp. 59–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hagoort, P. (2003). Interplay between syntax and semantics during sentence comprehension: ERP effects of combining syntactic and semantic violations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 883–899.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. M. (2000). ERP effects of listening to speech: Semantic ERP effects. Neuropsychologia, 38, 1518–1530. doi:10.1016/S0028-3932(00)00052-X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagoort, P., Brown, C., & Groothusen, J. (1993). The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. In S. M. Garnsey (Ed.), Language and cognitive processes. Special issue: Event-related brain potentials in the study of language (Vol. 8, pp. 439–483). Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Hald, L. A., Steenbeek-Planting, E. G., & Hagoort, P. (2007). The interaction of discourse context and world knowledge in online sentence comprehension. Evidence from the N400. Brain Research, 1146, 210–218. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2007.02.054
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hale, J. (2001). A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Language technologies (NAACL’01), Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA (pp. 1–8).
   Google Scholar
• Hoeks, J. C. J., Stowe, L. A., & Doedens, G. (2004). Seeing words in context: The interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading. Brain Research: Cognitive Brain Research, 19(1), 59–73. doi:10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2003.10.022
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jacobs, R. A., & Kruschke, J. K. (2011). Bayesian learning theory applied to human cognition. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2(1), 8–21. doi:10.1002/wcs.80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Karttunen, L., & Peters, S. (1979). Conventional implicature. In C. K. Oh and D. A. Dinneen (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 11: Presuppositions (pp. 1–55). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Keenan, J. M., Baillet, S. D., & Brown, P. (1984). The effects of causal cohesion on comprehension and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23(2), 115–126. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(84)90082-3
   Google Scholar
• King, J. W., & Kutas, M. (1995). Who did what and when? Using word- and clause-related ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 376–395. doi:10.1080/01690968908406365
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleinschmidt, D., & Jaeger, F. (in press) Robust speech perception: Recognizing the familiar, generalizing to the similar, and adapting to the novel. Psychological Review.
   Google Scholar
• Kluender, R., & Kutas, M. (1993). Bridging the gap: Evidence from ERPs on the processing of unbounded dependencies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 196–214. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(72)90028-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolk, H. H. J., Chwilla, D. J., van Herten, M., & Oor, P. J. W. (2003). Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 85(1), 1–36. doi:10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00548-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuperberg, G. R. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research, 1146, 23–49. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2006.12.063
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuperberg, G. R. (2013). The pro-active comprehender: What event-related potentials tell us about the dynamics of reading comprehension. In B. Miller, L. Cutting, & P. McCardle (Eds.), Unraveling the behavioral, neurobiological, and genetic components of reading comprehension (pp. 176–192). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
   Google Scholar
• Kuperberg, G. R. (2014). What event-related potentials tell us about predictive coding in language comprehension: A commentary on Rabovsky & McRae, “Simulating the N400 ERP component as semantic network error: Insights from a feature-based connectionist attractor model of word meaning” ( Manuscript under review).
   Google Scholar
• Kuperberg, G. R., Caplan, D., Sitnikova, T., Eddy, M., & Holcomb, P. J. (2006). Neural correlates of processing syntactic, semantic, and thematic relationships in sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 489–530. doi:10.1080/01690960500094279
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuperberg, G. R., Choi, A., Cohn, N., Paczynski, M., & Jackendoff, R. (2010). Electrophysiological correlates of complement coercion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 2685–2701. doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21333
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuperberg, G. R., Holcomb, P. J., Sitnikova, T., Greve, D., Dale, A. M., & Caplan, D. (2003). Distinct patterns of neural modulation during the processing of conceptual and syntactic anomalies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 272–293. doi:10.1017/S0048577299971202
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuperberg, G. R., Paczynski, M., & Ditman, T. (2011). Establishing causal coherence across sentences: An ERP study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 1230–1246. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 621–647. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207, 203–205. doi:10.1126/science.7350657
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307, 161–163. doi:10.1038/307161a0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lagerwerf, L. (1998). Causal connectives have presuppositions (PhD thesis). Catholic University of Brabant, Holland Academic Graphics, The Hague.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G. (1971). On generative semantics. In D. Steinberg & L. Jakobovits (Eds.), Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology (pp. 232–296). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211–240. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.211
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 259–284. doi:10.1080/01638539809545028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lau, E. F., Holcomb, P. J., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2013) Dissociating N400 effects of prediction from association in single word contexts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25, 484–502. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.054
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lau, E. F., Phillips, C., & Poeppel, D. (2008). A cortical network for semantics: (de)constructing the N400. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, 920–933. doi:10.1038/nrn2532
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, C., & Federmeier, K. D. (2006). To mind the mind: An event-related potential study of word class and word class ambiguity. Brain Research, 1081, 191–202. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2007.06.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, C.-L., & Federmeier, K. D. (2009). Wave-ering: An ERP study of syntactic and semantic context effects on ambiguity resolution for noun/verb homographs. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 538–555. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2009.08.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106, 1126–1177. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703.doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.676
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marslen-Wilson, W., Brown, C. M., and Tyler, L. K. (1988). Lexical representations in spoken language comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 3(1), 1–16. doi:10.1080/01690968808402079
   Google Scholar
• McRae, K., Ferretti, T. R., and Amyote, L. (1997). Thematic roles and verb-specific concepts. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 137–176. doi:10.1080/016909697386835
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Münte, T. F., Schiltz, K., & Kutas, M. (1998). When temporal terms belie conceptual order: An electrophysiological analysis. Nature, 3, 71–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray, J. D. (1994). Logical connectives and local coherence. In R. F. Lorch & E. J. O’Brien (Eds.), Sources of cohesion in text comprehension (pp. 107–125). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Murray, J. D. (1997). Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory & Cognition, 25, 227–236. doi:10.3758/BF03201114
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M. S. (2013). “If a lion could speak…”: Online sensitivity to propositional truth-value of unrealistic counterfactual sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(1), 54–67. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.08.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M. S., Ditman, T., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2010). On the incrementality of pragmatic processing: An ERP investigation of informativeness and pragmatic abilities. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 324–346. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2010.06.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M. S., & Martin, A. E. (2012). If the real world were irrelevant, so to speak: The role of propositional truth-value in counterfactual sentence comprehension. Cognition, 122(1), 102–109. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.09.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M. S., & van Berkum, J. J. A. (2005). Testing the limits of the semantic illusion phenomenon: ERPs reveal temporary semantic change deafness in discourse comprehension. Cognitive Brain Research, 24, 691–701. doi:10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.04.003
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nieuwland, M. S., & van Berkum, J. J. A. (2006). When peanuts fall in love: N400 evidence for the power of discourse. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1098–1111. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M. S., & van Berkum, J. J. A. (2008). The neurocognition of referential ambiguity in language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2, 603–630. doi:10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00070.x
   Google Scholar
• Norris, D. (2006). The Bayesian Reader: Explaining word recognition as an optimal Bayesian decision process. Psychological Review, 113, 327–357. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.113.2.327
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norris, D., & McQueen, J. M. (2008). A Bayesian model of continuous speech recognition. Psychological Review, 115, 357–395. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.357
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noveck, I., & Spotorno, N. (2013). Narrowing. In L. Goldstein (Ed.) Brevity (pp. 280–296). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97–113. doi:10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 785–806. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(92)90039-Z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1993). Event-related potentials and syntactic anomaly: Evidence of anomaly detection during the perception of continuous speech. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 413–437. doi:10.1080/01690969308407584
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Otten, M., & van Berkum, J. J. A. (2007). What makes a discourse constraining? Comparing the effects of discourse message and scenario fit on the discourse-dependent N400 effect. Brain Research, 1153, 166–177. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2007.03.058
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paczynski, M., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2011) Electrophysiological evidence for use of the animacy hierarchy, but not thematic role assignment, during verb-argument processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 1402–1456. doi:10.1080/01690965.2011.580143
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paczynski, M., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2012). Multiple influences of semantic memory on sentence processing: Distinct effects of semantic relatedness on violations of real-world event/state knowledge and animacy selection restrictions. Journal of Memory and Language, 67, 426–448. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.07.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paczynski, M., Jackendoff, R., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2014). When events change their nature. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26, 1905–1917. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2014.02.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qian, T., Jaeger, T. F., & Aslin, R. N. (2012). Learning to represent a multi-context environment: more than detecting changes. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 228. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00228
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rabovsky, M., & McRae, K. (2014). Simulating the N400 ERP component as semantic network error: Insights from a feature-based connectionist attractor model of word meaning. Cognition, 132(1), 68–89. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.03.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rao, R. P. N., & Ballard, D. H. (1999). Predictive coding in the visual cortex: A functional interpretation of some extra-classical receptive-field effects. Nature Neuroscience, 2(1), 79–87. doi:10.1038/4580
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanford, A. J., Leuthold, H., Bohan, J., & Sanford, A. J. S. (2011). Anomalies at the borderline of awareness: An ERP study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 514–523. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.24.6.1656
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Singer, M., & Halldorson, M. (1996). Constructing and validating motive bridging inferences. Cognitive Psychology, 30(1), 1–38. doi:10.1006/cogp.1996.0001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sitnikova, T., Holcomb, P., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2008). Neurocognitive mechanisms of human comprehension. In T. F. Shipley & J. M. Zacks (Eds.), Understanding events: How humans see, represent, and act on events (pp. 639–683). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• St. George, M., Mannes, S., & Hoffman, J. E. (1997). Individual differences in inference generation: An ERP analysis. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 776–787. doi:10.1162/jocn.1997.9.6.776
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information during spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 1632–1634. doi:10.1126/science.7777863
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Traxler, M. J., Bybee, M. D., & Pickering, M. J. (1997). Influence of connectives on language comprehension: Eye-tracking evidence for incremental interpretation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 50, 481–497. doi:10.1080/027249897391982
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Berkum, J. J. A. (2009). The neuropragmatics of “simple” utterance comprehension: An ERP review. In U. Sauerland & K. Yatsushiro (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: From experiment to theory (pp. 276–316). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C. M., Hagoort, P., & Zwitserlood, P. (2003). Event-related brain potentials reflect discourse-referential ambiguity in spoken language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 40, 235–248. doi:10.1111/1469-8986.00025
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (1990). Interactions between sentence context and word frequency in event-related brain potentials. Memory & Cognition, 18, 380–393. doi:10.3758/BF03197127
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Petten, C., & Luka, B. J. (2012). Prediction during language comprehension: Benefits, costs, and ERP components. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 83, 176–190. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.09.015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wacongne, C., Changeux, J.-P., & Dehaene, S. (2012). A neuronal model of predictive coding accounting for the mismatch negativity. Journal of Neuroscience, 32, 3665–3678. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5003-11.2012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wacongne, C., Labyt, E., van Wassenhove, V., Bekinschtein, T., Naccache, L., & Dehaene, S. (2011). Evidence for a hierarchy of predictions and prediction errors in human cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 20754–20759. doi:10.1073/pnas.1117807108
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warren, T., & McConnell, K. (2007). Investigating effects of selectional restriction violations and plausibility violation severity on eye-movements in reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 770–775. doi:10.3758/BF03196835
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (1993). Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua, 90(1–2). 1–25. doi:10.1016/0024-3841(93)90058-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wittenberg, E., Paczynski, M., Wiese, H., Jackendoff, R., & Kuperberg, G. (2014). The difference between “giving a rose” and “giving a kiss”: Sustained neural activity to the light verb construction. Journal of Memory and Language, 73, 31–42. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2014.02.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wlotko, E. W., & Federmeier, K. D. (2012). So that's what you meant! Event-related potentials reveal multiple aspects of context use during construction of message-level meaning. NeuroImage, 62(1), 356–366. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.054
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, C. L., Perfetti, C. A., & Schmalhofer, F. (2007). Event-related potential indicators of text integration across sentence boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(1), 55–89. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.33.1.55
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu, A. J. (2007). Adaptive behavior: humans act as Bayesian learners. Current Biology, 17(22), R977–980. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2007.09.007
   Google Scholar
• Yu, A. J., & Dayan, P. (2005). Uncertainty, neuromodulation, and attention. Neuron, 46(4), 681–692. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2005.04.026
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162–185. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar