Talker-specific predictions during language processing

References

• Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73(3), 247–264. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00059-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models using lme4. 67(1). doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
   Google Scholar
• Battig, W. F., & Montague, W. E. (1969). Category norms of verbal items in 56 categories A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 80(3. Pt.2), 1–46. doi: 10.1037/h0027577
   Google Scholar
• Brehm, L., Jackson, C. N., & Miller, K. L. (2019). Speaker-specific processing of anomalous utterances. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(4), 764–778. doi: 10.1177/1747021818765547
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown-Schmidt, S., Yoon, S. O., & Ryskin, R. A. (2015). People as contexts in conversation. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 62, pp. 59–99). Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/bs.plm.2014.09.003
   Google Scholar
• Bürkner, P.-C. (2018). Advanced Bayesian multilevel modeling with the R package brms. The R Journal, 10(1), 395–411. doi: 10.32614/RJ-2018-017
   Google Scholar
• Cai, Z. G., Gilbert, R. A., Davis, M. H., Gaskell, M. G., Farrar, L., Adler, S., & Rodd, J. M. (2017). Accent modulates access to word meaning: Evidence for a speaker-model account of spoken word recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 98, 73–101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creel, S. C. (2012). Preschoolers’ use of talker information in on-line comprehension. Child Development, 83(6), 2042–2056. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01816.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creel, S. C. (2014). Preschoolers’ flexible use of talker information during word learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 73(1), 81–98. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2014.03.001
   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
• Creel, S. C., & Bregman, M. R. (2011). How talker identity relates to language processing. Linguistics and Language Compass, 5(5), 190–204. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2011.00276.x
   Google Scholar
• Dahan, D., Drucker, S. J., & Scarborough, R. A. (2008). Talker adaptation in speech perception: Adjusting the signal or the representations? Cognition, 108(3), 710–718. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.06.003
   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. D., & 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., Kutas, M., & Schul, R. (2010). Age-related and individual differences in the use of prediction during language comprehension. Brain and Language, 115(3), 149–161. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2010.07.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Federmeier, K. D., & Laszlo, S. (2009). Chapter 1 time for meaning. Electrophysiology provides insights into the dynamics of representation and processing in semantic memory. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 51, pp. 1–44). Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/S0079-7421(09)51001-8
   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(1), 75–84. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.06.101
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fischler, I., Bloom, P. A., Childers, D. G., Roucos, S. E., & Perry, N. W. (1983). Brain potentials related to stages of sentence verification. Psychophysiology, 20(4), 400–409. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1983.tb00920.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
• Heinze, H.-J., Muente, T. F., & Kutas, M. (1998). Context effects in a category verification task as assessed by event-related brain potential (ERP) measures. Biological Psychology, 47(2), 121–135.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunt, K. P., & Hodge, M. H. (1971). Category-item frequency and category-name meaningfulness (m’): Taxonomic norms for 84 categories. Psychonomic Monograph Supplements, 4(6), 97–121.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, K. E., & Mervis, C. B. (1997). Effects of varying levels of expertise on the basic level of categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(3), 248–277. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.126.3.248
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleinschmidt, D. F., & Jaeger, T. F. (2015). Robust speech perception: Recognize the familiar, generalize to the similar, and adapt to the novel. Psychological Review, 122(2), 148–203. doi: 10.1037/a0038695
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kruschke, J. (2015). Doing Bayesian data analysis: A tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan (2nd ed). Academic Press.
   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
• 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(1), 621–647. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kutas, M., & Van Petten, C. K. (1994). Psycholinguistics electrified: Event-related brain potential investigations. In Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 83–143). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). Lmertest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. doi: 10.18637/jss.v082.i13
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenth, R. (2018). emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. R package version 1.2. https://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=emmeans.
   Google Scholar
• Lund, K., & Burgess, C. (1996). Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28(2), 203–208.
   Google Scholar
• McEvoy, C. L., & Nelson, D. L. (1982). Category name and instance norms for 106 categories of various sizes. The American Journal of Psychology, 95(4), 581–634. doi: 10.2307/1422189
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreno, E. M., Casado, P., & Martín-Loeches, M. (2016). Tell me sweet little lies: An event-related potentials study on the processing of social lies. Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 16(4), 616–625. doi: 10.3758/s13415-016-0418-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M. S., Politzer-Ahles, S., Heyselaar, E., Segaert, K., Darley, E., Kazanina, N., … Mézière, D. (2018). Large-scale replication study reveals a limit on probabilistic prediction in language comprehension. eLife, 7, e33468.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google 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(7), 1098–1111. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.7.1098
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Payne, B. R., & Federmeier, K. D. (2017). Pace yourself: Intraindividual variability in context use revealed by self-paced event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 29(5), 837–854. doi: 10.1162/jocn
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Rugg, M. D. (1985). The effects of semantic priming and word repetition on event-related potentials. Psychophysiology, 22(6), 642–647. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1985.tb01661.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rugg, M. D. (1990). Event-related brain potentials dissociate repetition effects of high-and low-frequency words. Memory Cognition, 18(4), 367–379.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryskin, R. A., Wang, R. F., & Brown-Schmidt, S. (2016). Listeners use speaker identity to access representations of spatial perspective during online language comprehension. Cognition, 147, 75–84. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.11.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapiro, S. I., & Palermo, D. S. (1970). Conceptual organization and class membership: Normative data for representatives of 100 categories. Psychonomic Monograph Supplements, 3(11), 107–127.
   Google Scholar
• Stuss, D., Picton, T., & Cerri, A. (1988). Electrophysiological manifestations of typicality judgment. Brain and Language, 33(2), 260–272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanaka, J. W., & Taylor, M. (1991). Object categories and expertise: Is the basic-level in the eye of the beholder? Cognitive Psychology, 23, 457–482. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(91)90016-H
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trude, A. M., & Brown-Schmidt, S. (2012). Talker-specific perceptual adaptation during online speech perception. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(7–8), 979–1001. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2011.597153
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trude, A. M., Duff, M. C., & Brown-Schmidt, S. (2014). Talker-specific learning in amnesia: Insight into mechanisms of adaptive speech perception. Cortex, 54(1), 117–123. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2014.01.015
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2010). Quantifiers more or less quantify on-line: ERP evidence for partial incremental interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(2), 158–179. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2010.03.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®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 Petten, C., Kutas, M., Kluender, R., Mitchiner, M., & McIsaac, H. (1991). Fractionating the word repetition effect with event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 131–150.
   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
• Wlotko, E. W., & Federmeier, K. D. (2007). Finding the right word: Hemispheric asymmetries in the use of sentence context information. Neuropsychologia, 45(13), 3001–3014. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.05.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar