Anticipating predictability: an ERP investigation of expectation-managing discourse markers in dialogue comprehension

References

• Aijmer, K. (2002). English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Aijmer, K., & Simon-Vandenbergen, A. M. (2004). A model and a methodology for the study of pragmatic markers: The semantic field of expectation. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(10), 1781–1805. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX lexical database. [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.
   Google Scholar
• Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bradlow, A. R., & Bent, T. (2008). Perceptual adaptation to non-native speech. Cognition, 106(2), 707–729. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.04.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brewer, W. F., & Treyens, J. C. (1981). Role of schemata in memory for places. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 207–230. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(81)90008-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brinton, L. J. (1996). Pragmatic markers in english: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110907582.
   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
• Brouwer, H., Fitz, H., & Hoeks, J. (2012). Getting real about semantic illusions: Rethinking the functional role of the P600 in language comprehension. Brain Research, 1446, 127–143. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2012.01.055
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, C., & Hagoort, P. (1993). The processing nature of the N400: Evidence from masked priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5(1), 34–44. doi: 10.1162/jocn.1993.5.1.34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cairns, H. S., Cowart, W., & Jablon, A. D. (1981). Effects of prior context upon the integration of lexical information during sentence processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(4), 445–453. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5371(81)90551-x
   Google Scholar
• Camblin, C. C., Ledoux, K., Boudewyn, M., Gordon, P. C., & Swaab, T. Y. (2007). Processing new and repeated names: Effects of coreference on repetition priming with speech and fast RSVP. Brain Research, 1146, 172–184. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.07.033
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canestrelli, A. R., Mak, W. M., & Sanders, T. J. M. (2013). Causal connectives in discourse processing: How differences in subjectivity are reflected in eye movements. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(9), 1394–1413. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2012.685885
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chow, W.-Y., Lau, E., Wang, S., & Phillips, C. (2018). Wait a second! Delayed impact of argument roles on on-line verb prediction. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33(7), 803–828. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2018.1427878
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J. F., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42(4), 368–407. doi: 10.1006/cogp.2001.0752
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chwilla, D. J., & Kolk, H. H. J. (2002). Three-step priming in lexical decision. Memory & Cognition, 30(2), 217–225. doi: 10.3758/bf03195282
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, H., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84(1), 73–111. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00017-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corley, M. (2010). Making predictions from speech with repairs: Evidence from eye movements. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(5), 706–727. doi: 10.1080/01690960903512489
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corley, M., MacGregor, L., & Donaldson, D. (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 responses 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., & Lovett, C. (2004). Handedness, hemispheric asymmetries, and joke comprehension. Cognitive Brain Research, 19(3), 275–288. doi: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2003.11.015
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Coulson, S., & Lovett, C. (2010). Comprehension of non-conventional indirect requests: An event-related brain potential study. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 22(1), 107–124.
   Google Scholar
• Dahan, D., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2004). Continuous mapping from sound to meaning in spoken-language comprehension: Immediate effects of verb-based thematic constraints. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(2), 498–513. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.30.2.498
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delaney-Busch, N., Morgan, E., Lau, E., & Kuperberg, G. (2017). Comprehenders rationally adapt semantic predictions to the statistics of the local environment: A Bayesian model of trial-by-trial N400 amplitudes. In E. Davelaar, G. Gunzelmann, H. Howes, & T. Tenbrink (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1–6). London: Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• DeLong, K., Quante, L., & Kutas, M. (2014). Predictability, plausibility, and two late ERP positivities during written sentence comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 61, 150–162. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.06.016
   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(9), 1203–1207. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01199.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Federmeier, K. D. (2007). Thinking ahead: The role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 44(4), 491–505. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00531.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Federmeier, K., & Kutas, M. (1999). A rose by any other name: Long-term memory structure and sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(4), 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
• 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
• Finlayson, I. R., & Corley, M. (2012). Disfluency in dialogue: An intentional signal from the speaker? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(5), 921–928. doi: 10.3758/s13423-012-0279-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer, K. (ed.). (2006). Approaches to discourse particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Fox Tree, J. E. (2001). Listeners’ uses of um and uh in speech comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 29(2), 320–326. doi: 10.3758/bf03194926
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox Tree, J. E. (2010). Discourse markers across speakers and settings. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(5), 269–281. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2010.00195.x
   Google Scholar
• Fox Tree, J. E., & Schrock, J. C. (1999). Discourse markers in spontaneous speech: Oh what a difference an oh makes. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(2), 280–295. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1998.2613
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931–952. doi: 10.1016/s0378-2166(98)00101-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerwien, J., & Rudka, M. (in press). Expectation changes over time: How long it takes to process focus imposed by German ‘sogar’. In I. Recio, L. Nadal, A. Cruz, & O. Loureda (Eds.), Methodological approaches to discourse markers (Pragmatics and Beyond series) (pp. 1–20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
   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(6), 883–899.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagoort, P., Hald, L., Bastiaansen, M., & Petersson, K. M. (2004). Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science, 304(5669), 438–441. doi: 10.1126/science.1095455
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrington Stack, C. M., James, A. N., & Watson, D. G. (2018). A failure to replicate rapid syntactic adaptation in comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 46(6), 864–877. doi: 10.3758/s13421-018-0808-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderson, J. M., & Ferreira, F. (2004). Scene Perception for Psycholinguists. In J. M. Henderson, & F. Ferreira (Eds.), The interface of language, vision, and action: Eye movements and the visual world (pp. 1–58). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hoeks, J. C. J., & Brouwer, H. (2014). Electrophysiological research on conversation and discourse processing. In T. M. Holtgraves (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of language and social cognition (pp. 365–386). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199838639.013.024.
   Google Scholar
• Huettig, F., Rommers, J., & Meyer, A. (2011). Using the visual world paradigm to study language processing: A review and critical evaluation. Acta Psychologica, 137(2), 151–171. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.11.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jucker, A. H., & Ziv, Y. (eds.). (1998). Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Kamide, Y. (2008). Anticipatory processes in sentence processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(4), 647–670. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00072.x
   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, C. S., Gunlogson, C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Runner, J. T. (2015). Context-driven expectations about focus alternatives. Cognition, 139, 28–49. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.02.009
   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., Caplan, D., Sitnikova, T., Eddy, M., & Holcomb, P. (2006). Neural correlates of processing syntactic, semantic, and thematic relationships in sentences. Language And, 21(5), 489–530. doi: 10.1080/01690960500094279
   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., Pontillo, D. F., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2014). Is it or isn’t it: Listeners make rapid use of prosody to infer speaker meanings. Cognition, 133(2), 335–342. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.05.017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kutas, M., DeLong, K. A., & Smith, N. J. (2011). A look around at what lies ahead: Prediction and predictability in language processing. In M. Bar (Ed.), Predictions in the brain: Using our past to generate a future (pp. 190–207). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195395518.003.0065.
   Google Scholar
• Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(12), 463–470. doi: 10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01560-6
   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. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207(4427), 203–205. doi: 10.1126/science.7350657
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307(5947), 161–163. doi: 10.1038/307161a0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kutas, M., Van Petten, C. K., & Kluender, R. (2006). Psycholinguistics electrified II (1994–2005). In M. J. Traxler, & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 659–724). London: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/b978-012369374-7/50018-3.
   Google Scholar
• Lowder, M. W., & Ferreira, F. (2016). Prediction in the processing of repair disfluencies: Evidence from the visual-world paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(9), 1400–1416. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000256
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maschler, Y., & Schiffrin, D. (2015). Discourse markers: Language, meaning, and context. In D. Tannen, H. Hamilton, & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The Handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 189–221). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1002/9781118584194.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, G. A., & Selfridge, J. A. (1950). Verbal context and the recall of meaningful material. The American Journal of Psychology, 63(2), 176–185. doi: 10.2307/1418920
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreno, E., Federmeier, K., & Kutas, M. (2002). Switching languages, switching palabras (words): an electrophysiological study of code switching. Brain and Language, 80(2), 188–207. doi: 10.1006/brln.2001.2588
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mosegaard-Hansen, M.-B. (1998). The function of discourse particles. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/pbns.53.
   Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M. S. (2015). The truth before and after: Brain potentials reveal automatic activation of event knowledge during sentence comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27(11), 2215–2228. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00856
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M. S., Barr, D. J., Bartolozzi, F., Busch-Moreno, S., Darley, E., Donaldson, D. I., … Von Grebmer Zu Wolfsthurn, S. (in press). Dissociable effects of prediction and integration during language comprehension: Evidence from a large-scale study using brain potentials. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences. doi: 10.1101/267815
   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(3), 324–346. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2010.06.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M. S., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2008). When the truth is too hard to handle. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1213–1218. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02226.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M., & Martin, A. (2012). If the real world were irrelevant, so to speak: The role of propositional truth-value in counterfactual sentence comprehension. Cognition, 122, 102–109. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.09.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M., & van Berkum, J. (2006). When peanuts fall in love: N400 evidence for the power of discourse. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(7), 1098–1111. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.7.1098
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norris, D., McQueen, J. M., & Cutler, A. (2003). Perceptual learning in speech. Cognitive Psychology, 47(2), 201–238. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00006-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Brien, E. J., & Myers, J. L. (1985). When comprehension difficulty improves memory for text. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11(1), 12–21. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.11.1.12
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Otten, M., & van Berkum, J. (2008). Discourse-based word anticipation during language processing: Prediction or priming? Discourse Processes, 45(6), 464–496. doi: 10.1080/01638530802356463
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perry, A. R., & Wingfield, A. (1994). Contextual encoding by young and elderly adults as revealed by cued and free recall. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 1(2), 120–139. doi: 10.1080/09289919408251454
   Google Scholar
• Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4), 329–347. doi: 10.1017/s0140525(12001495
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Regel, S., Gunter, T. C., & Friederici, A. D. (2011). Isn’t it ironic? An electrophysiological exploration of figurative language processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(2), 277–293. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2010.21411
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riggs, K. M., Wingfield, A., & Tun, P. A. (1993). Passage difficulty, speech rate, and age differences in memory for spoken text: Speech recall and the complexity hypothesis. Experimental Aging Research, 19(2), 111–128. doi: 10.1080/03610739308253926
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rommers, J., & Federmeier, K. D. (2018a). Predictability’s aftermath: Downstream consequences of word predictability as revealed by repetition effects. Cortex, 101, 16–30. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2017.12.018
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rommers, J., & Federmeier, K. D. (2018b). Lingering expectations: A pseudo-repetition effect for words previously expected but not presented. NeuroImage, 183, 263–272. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.08.023
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2010). Some other ‘uh(m)’s. Discourse Processes, 47(2), 130–174. doi: 10.1080/01638530903223380
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schiffrin, D. (1988). Discourse markers. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schourup, L. (1999). Discourse markers. Lingua. International Review of General Linguistics. Revue internationale De Linguistique Generale, 107(3-4), 227–265. doi: 10.1016/s0024-3841(96)90026-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schumacher, P. B. (2013). When combinatorial processing results in reconceptualization: Toward a new approach of compositionality. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–13. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00677
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spotorno, N., Cheylus, A., van der Henst, J. B., & Noveck, I. A. (2013). What’s behind a P600? Integration operations during irony processing. PLoS ONE, 8(6), 1–10. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066839
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thornhill, D. E., & Van Petten, C. (2012). Lexical versus conceptual anticipation during sentence processing: Frontal positivity and N400 ERP components. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 83(3), 382–392. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.12.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Traugott, E. C. (2010). (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization (pp. 29–71). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110226102.1.29.
   Google Scholar
• van Bergen, G., & Bosker, H. R. (2018). Linguistic expectation management in online discourse processing: An investigation of Dutch inderdaad ‘indeed’ and eigenlijk ‘actually’. Journal of Memory and Language, 103, 191–209. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2018.08.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Bergen, G., van Gijn, R., Hogeweg, L., & Lestrade, S. (2011). Discourse marking and the subtle art of mind-reading : The case of Dutch eigenlijk. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3877–3892. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2018.08.004
   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). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• van Berkum, J. J. A. (2010). The brain is a prediction machine that cares about good and bad – any implications for neuropragmatics? Italian Journal of Linguistics, 22(1), 181–208.
   Google Scholar
• van Berkum, J. J. A., van den Brink, D., Tesink, C. M. J. Y., Kos, M., & Hagoort, P. (2008). The neural integration of speaker and message. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(4), 580–591. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2008.20054
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van de Meerendonk, N., Kolk, H. H. J., Vissers, C. T. W. M., & Chwilla, D. J. (2010). Monitoring in language perception: Mild and strong conflicts elicit different ERP patterns. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(1), 67–82. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2008.21170
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Kesteren, M. T. R., Ruiter, D. J., Fernández, G., & Henson, R. N. (2012). How schema and novelty augment memory formation. Trends in Neurosciences, 35(4), 211–219. doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2012.02.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Petten, C., & Luka, B. (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
• Wlotko, E. W., & Federmeier, K. D. (2015). Time for prediction? The effect of presentation rate on predictive sentence comprehension during word-by-word reading. Cortex, 68, 20–32. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2015.03.014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiang, M., & Kuperberg, G. (2015). Reversing expectations during discourse comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(6), 648–672. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2014.995679
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar