(Early) context effects on event-related potentials over natural inputs

References

• Arai, M., & Mazuka, R. (2014). The development of Japanese passive syntax as indexed by structural priming in comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(1), 60–78. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2013.790454
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baayen, R. H., Feldman, L. B., & Schreuder, R. (2006). Morphological influences on the recognition of monosyllabic monomorphemic words. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(2), 290–313. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.03.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baayen, R. H., van Rij, J., de Cat, C., & Wood, S. N. (2016). Autocorrelated errors in experimental data in the language sciences: Some solutions offered by generalized additive mixed models. In D. Speelman, K. Heylen, & D. Geeraerts (Eds.), Mixed-effects regression models in linguistics (pp. 49–69). Springer International Publishing AG. doi: 10.1002/pssb.201300062
   Google Scholar
• Baayen, R. H., Vasishth, S., Kliegl, R., & Bates, D. (2017). The cave of shadows: Addressing the human factor with generalized additive mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 206–234. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2016.11.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., … Treiman, R. (2007). The English lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 445–459. doi: 10.3758/BF03193014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. M., & Walker, S. C. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broderick, M. P., Anderson, A. J., Di Liberto, G. M., Crosse, M. J., & Lalor, E. C. (2018). Electrophysiological correlates of semantic dissimilarity reflect the comprehension of natural, narrative speech. Current Biology, 28(5), 803–809.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2018.01.080
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brouwer, H., Crocker, M. W., Venhuizen, N. J., & Hoeks, J. C. J. (2017). A neurocomputational model of the N400 and the P600 in language processing. Cognitive Science, 41, 1318–1352. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12461
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bürkner, P.-C. (2017). brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 80(1), 1–28. doi: 10.18637/jss.v080.i01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burns, M. D., Bigdely-Shamlo, N., Smith, N. J., Kreutz-Delgado, K., & Makeig, S. (2013). Comparison of averaging and regression techniques for estimating Event Related Potentials. In Conference proceedings: … Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual Conference (Vol. 2013, pp. 1680–1683). doi: 10.1109/EMBC.2013.6609841
   Google Scholar
• Chang, F., Dell, G. S., & Bock, K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review, 113(2), 234–272. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.113.2.234
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, S. F., & Goodman, J. T. J. (1999). An empirical study of smoothing techniques for language modeling. Computer Speech and Language, 13(13), 359–393.
   Google Scholar
• Creel, S. C., Aslin, R. N., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2008). Heeding the voice of experience: The role of talker variation in lexical access. Cognition, 106(2), 633–664. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.03.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dambacher, M., Kliegl, R., Hofmann, M., & Jacobs, A. M. (2006). Frequency and predictability effects on event-related potentials during reading. Brain Research, 1084(1), 89–103. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.02.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delaney-Busch, N., Lau, E. F., Morgan, E., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2019). Neural evidence for bayesian trial-by-trial adaptation on the N400 during semantic priming. Cognition, 187, 10–20. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2019.01.001.
   Google Scholar
• Dell, G. S., & Chang, F. (2014). The P-chain: Relating sentence production and its disorders to comprehension and acquisition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1634), 20120394. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2012.0394
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dell, G. S., & O’Seaghdha, P. G. (1992). Stages of lexical access in language production. Cognition, 42(1–3), 287–314. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(92)90046-K
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dimigen, O., Sommer, W., Hohlfeld, A., Jacobs, A. M., & Kliegl, R. (2011). Coregistration of eye movements and EEG in natural reading: Analyses and review. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(4), 552–572. doi: 10.1037/a0023885
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Domahs, U., Klein, E., Huber, W., & Domahs, F. (2013). Good, bad and ugly word stress – fMRI evidence for foot structure driven processing of prosodic violations. Brain and Language, 125(3), 272–282. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2013.02.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elston-Güttler, K. E., Gunter, T. C., & Kotz, S. A. (2005). Zooming into L2: Global language context and adjustment affect processing of interlingual homographs in sentences. Cognitive Brain Research, 25(1), 57–70. doi: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.04.007
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ettinger, A., Feldman, N. H., Resnik, P., & Phillips, C. (2016). Modeling N400 amplitude using vector space models of word representation. In Proceedings of the 38th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1445–1450).
   Google Scholar
• Farmer, T. A., Monaghan, P., Misyak, J. B., & Christiansen, M. H. (2011). Phonological typicality influences sentence processing in predictive contexts: Reply to Staub, Grant, Clifton, and Rayner (2009). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(5), 1318–1325. doi: 10.1037/a0023063
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Federmeier, K. D., Mai, H., & Kutas, M. (2005). Both sides get the point: Hemispheric sensitivities to sentential constraint. Memory & Cognition, 33(5), 871–886. doi: 10.3758/BF03193082
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fine, A. B., & Jaeger, T. F. (2016). The role of verb repetition in cumulative structural priming in comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(9), 1362–1376. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000236
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
• Frank, S. L., Fernandez Monsalve, I., Thompson, R. L., & Vigliocco, G. (2013). Reading time data for evaluating broad-coverage models of English sentence processing. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1182–1190. doi: 10.3758/s13428-012-0313-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frank, S. L., Otten, L. J., Galli, G., & Vigliocco, G. (2015). The ERP response to the amount of information conveyed by words in sentences. Brain and Language, 140, 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2014.10.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frank, S. L., & Willems, R. M. (2017). Word predictability and semantic similarity show distinct patterns of brain activity during language comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 32(9), 1192–1203. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2017.1323109
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodkind, A., & Bicknell, K. (2018). Predictive power of word surprisal for reading times is a linear function of language model quality. In Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics (pp. 10–18).
   Google Scholar
• Grainger, J., & Holcomb, P. J. (2009). Watching the word go by: On the time-course of component processes in visual word recognition. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 128–156. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00121.x
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Groppe, D. M., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2011). Mass univariate analysis of event-related brain potentials/fields I: A critical tutorial review. Psychophysiology, 48(12), 1711–1725. doi: 10.1016/j.micinf.2011.07.011.Innate
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guthrie, D., & Buchwald, J. S. (1991). Significance testing of difference potentials. Psychophysiology, 28(2), 240–244. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1991.tb00417.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanulíková, A., van Alphen, P. M., van Goch, M. M., & Weber, A. (2012). When one person’s mistake is another’s standard usage: The effect of foreign accent on syntactic processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(4), 878–887. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00103
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hauk, O., Davis, M. H., Ford, M., Pulvermüller, F., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2006). The time course of visual word recognition as revealed by linear regression analysis of ERP data. NeuroImage, 30(4), 1383–1400. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.11.048
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hauk, O., Dreyer, F., van Casteren, M., Coutout, C., Fonteneau, E., & Weiss, B. (2017). Investigating brain mechanisms of natural reading by combining EEG, MEG and eye-tracking. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual Meeting of the Society for the Neurobiology of Language (pp. 222–223).
   Google Scholar
• Hauk, O., Pulvermüller, F., Ford, M., Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Davis, M. H. (2009). Can I have a quick word? Early electrophysiological manifestations of psycholinguistic processes revealed by event-related regression analysis of the EEG. Biological Psychology, 80(1), 64–74. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2008.04.015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hendrix, P., Baayen, R. H., & Bolger, P. (2017). Distinct ERP signatures of word frequency, phrase frequency, and prototypicality in speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(1), 128–149. doi: 10.1037/a0040332
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaeger, T. F. (2010). Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology, 61(1), 23–62. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.02.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaschak, M. P., & Glenberg, A. M. (2004). This construction needs learned. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(3), 450–467. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.133.3.450
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, A., & Lai, V. (2012). Rapid interactions between lexical semantic and word form analysis during word recognition in context: Evidence from ERPs. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(5), 1104–1112. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00148
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kliegl, R., Grabner, E., Rolfs, M., & Engbert, R. (2004). Length, frequency, and predictability effects of words on eye movements in reading. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16(1/2), 262–284. doi: 10.1080/09541440340000213
   Google Scholar
• Kuperberg, G. R. (2016). Separate streams or probabilistic inference? What the N400 can tell us about the comprehension of events. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(5), 602–616. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2015.1130233
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuperberg, G. R., & Jaeger, T. F. (2016). What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(1), 32–59. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2015.1102299
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kurumada, C., Brown, M., & Bibyk, S. (2014). Rapid adaptation in online pragmatic interpretation of contrastive prosody. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 791–796).
   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
• Laszlo, S., & Federmeier, K. D. (2014). Never seem to find the time: Evaluating the physiological time course of visual word recognition with regression analysis of single-item event-related potentials. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(5), 642–661. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2013.866259
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, C.-Y., Liu, Y.-N., & Tsai, J.-L. (2012, August). The time course of contextual effects on visual word recognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–13. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00285
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorch, R. F., & Myers, J. L. (1990). Regression analyses of repeated measures data in cognitive research. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(1), 149–157. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.16.1.149
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luke, S. G., & Christianson, K. (2016). Limits on lexical prediction during reading. Cognitive Psychology, 88, 22–60. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2016.06.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luke, S. G., & Christianson, K. (2017). The Provo Corpus: A large eye-tracking corpus with predictability norms. Behavior Research Methods, 1–8. doi: 10.3758/s13428-017-0908-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macizo, P., & Herrera, A. (2011). Cognitive control in number processing: Evidence from the unit-decade compatibility effect. Acta Psychologica, 136(1), 112–118. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.10.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18(1), 1–86. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(86)90015-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mikolov, T., Sutskever, I., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013). Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. doi: 10.1162/jmlr.2003.3.4-5.951
   Google Scholar
• Mirman, D., Dixon, J. A., & Magnuson, J. S. (2008). Statistical and computational models of the visual world paradigm: Growth curves and individual differences. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 475–494. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Narum, S. R. (2006). Beyond Bonferroni: Less conservative analyses for conservation genetics. Conservation Genetics, 7(5), 783–787. doi: 10.1007/s10592-005-9056-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M. S., Politzer-Ahles, S., Heyselaar, E., Segaert, K., Darley, E., Kazanina, N., … Huettig, F. (2018). Large-scale replication study reveals a limit on probabilistic prediction in language comprehension. ELife, 7, e33468. doi: 10.7554/eLife.33468
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nixon, J. S., van Rij, J., Mok, P., Baayen, R. H., & Chen, Y. (2016). The temporal dynamics of perceptual uncertainty: Eye movement evidence from Cantonese segment and tone perception. Journal of Memory and Language, 90, 103–125. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2016.03.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norris, D., McQueen, J. M., & Cutler, A. (2015, December). Prediction, Bayesian inference and feedback in speech recognition. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 3798, 1–15. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2015.1081703
   Google Scholar
• Parviz, M., Johnson, M., Johnson, B., & Brock, J. (2011). Using language models and latent semantic analysis to characterise the N400m neural response. In Proceedings of the Australasian Language Technology Association Workshop 2011 (pp. 38–46). Retrieved from http://aclweb.org/anthology/U11-1007
   Google Scholar
• Payne, B. R., Lee, C. L., & Federmeier, K. D. (2015). Revisiting the incremental effects of context on word processing: Evidence from single-word event-related brain potentials. Psychophysiology, 52(11), 1456–1469. doi: 10.1111/psyp.12515
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penolazzi, B., Hauk, O., & Pulvermüller, F. (2007). Early semantic context integration and lexical access as revealed by event-related brain potentials. Biological Psychology, 74(3), 374–388. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2006.09.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piai, V., Dahlslätt, K., & Maris, E. (2015). Statistically comparing EEG/MEG waveforms through successive significant univariate tests: How bad can it be? Psychophysiology, 52(3), 440–443. doi: 10.1111/psyp.12335
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plöchl, M., Ossandón, J. P., & König, P. (2012). Combining EEG and eye tracking: identification, characterization, and correction of eye movement artifacts in electroencephalographic data. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 278. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00278
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rabovsky, M., Hansen, S. S., & McClelland, J. L. (2018). Modelling the N400 brain potential as change in a probabilistic representation of meaning. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(9), 693–705. doi: 10.1038/s41562-018-0406-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R: A language and environment for statistical computing. (2016). R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria. R Core Team. Retrieved from https://www.r-project.org/about.html
   Google Scholar
• Schäfer, R. (2015). Processing and querying large web corpora with the COW14 architecture. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Challenges in the Management of Large Corpora (CMLC-3) (pp. 28–34). Retrieved from http://rolandschaefer.net/cow14-cmlc3-paper/
   Google Scholar
• Seidenberg, M. S., & MacDonald, M. C. (1999). A probabilistic constraints approach to language acquisition and processing. Cognitive Science, 23(4), 569–588. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog2304
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sereno, S. C., Posner, M. I., & Rayner, K. (1998). Establishing a time-line of word recognition: Evidence from eye movements and event-related potentials. Neuroreport, 9(10), 2195–2200.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, N. J., & Kutas, M. (2015a). Regression-based estimation of ERP waveforms: I. The rERP framework. Psychophysiology, 52(2), 157–168. doi: 10.1111/psyp.12317
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, N. J., & Kutas, M. (2015b). Regression-based estimation of ERP waveforms: II. Nonlinear effects, overlap correction, and practical considerations. Psychophysiology, 52(2), 169–181. doi: 10.1111/psyp.12320
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, N. J., & Levy, R. (2013). The effect of word predictability on reading time is logarithmic. Cognition, 128(3), 302–319. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.02.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staub, A., Grant, M., Clifton, C., & Rayner, K. (2009). Phonological typicality does not influence fixation durations in normal reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(3), 806–814. doi: 10.1037/a0015123
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanenhaus, M., Spivey-Knowlton, M., Eberhard, K., & Sedivy, J. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268(5217), 1632–1634. doi: 10.1126/science.7777863
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tremblay, A., & Newman, A. J. (2015). Modeling nonlinear relationships in ERP data using mixed-effects regression with R examples. Psychophysiology, 52(1), 124–139. doi: 10.1111/psyp.12299
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Berkum, J. J. A., Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. M. (1999). Semantic integration in sentences and discourse: Evidence from the N400. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11(6), 657–671. doi: 10.1162/089892999563724
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (1990). Interactions between sentence context and word frequency in event-related brain potentials. Memory & Cognition, 18(4), 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(2), 176–190. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.09.015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Rij, J. (2016). Testing for significance. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/itsadug/vignettes/test.html
   Google Scholar
• van Rij, J., Wieling, M., Baayen, R. H., & van Rijn, H. (2017).  itsadug: Interpreting Time Series and Autocorrelated Data Using GAMMs. R package, version 2.2.
   Google Scholar
• Wood, S. N. (2006). Generalized additive models. doi: 10.1002/0471667196.ess0297.pub2
   Google Scholar
• Yan, S., Kuperberg, G. R., & Jaeger, T. F. (2017). Prediction (or not) during language processing. A commentary on Nieuwland et al. (2017) and Delong et al. (2005). BioRxiv. Retrieved from http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/30/143750.abstract
   Google Scholar
• Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behaviour and the principle of least-effort. New York: Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar