Prediction failure blocks the use of local semantic context

References

• Ashby, J., Rayner, K., & Clifton, C. (2005). Eye movements of highly skilled and average readers: Differential effects of frequency and predictability. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 58(6), 1065–1086. doi: 10.1080/02724980443000476
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balota, D. A., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (1985). The interaction of contextual constraints and parafoveal visual information in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 17(3), 364–390. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(85)90013-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baroni, M., Bernardini, S., Comastri, F., Piccioni, L., Volpi, A., Aston, G., & Mazzoleni, M. (2004). Introducing the La Repubblica corpus: A large, annotated, TEI(XML)-compliant corpus of newspaper Italian. Proceedings of LREC, 2(5), 1771–1774.
   Google Scholar
• Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bormuth, J. R. (1966). Readability: A new approach. Reading Research Quarterly, 1(3), 79–132. doi: 10.2307/747021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boudewyn, M. A., Long, D. L., & Swaab, T. Y. (2015). Graded expectations: Predictive processing and the adjustment of expectations during spoken language comprehension. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 15(3), 607–624. doi: 10.3758/s13415-015-0340-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brothers, T., Swaab, T. Y., & Traxler, M. J. (2015). Effects of prediction and contextual support on lexical processing: Prediction takes precedence. Cognition, 136, 135–149. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.10.017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2016). The now-or-never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, E62. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X1500031X
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
• DeLong, K. A., 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., Troyer, M., & Kutas, M. (2014). Pre-processing in sentence comprehension: Sensitivity to likely upcoming meaning and structure. Language and Linguistics Compass, 8(12), 631–645. doi: 10.1111/lnc3.12093
   PubMedGoogle 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
• DeLong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2005). Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience, 8(8), 1117–1121. doi: 10.1038/nn1504
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delorme, A., & Makeig, S. (2004). EEGLAB: An open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 134(1), 9–21. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dikker, S., Rabagliati, H., & Pylkkänen, L. (2009). Sensitivity to syntax in visual cortex. Cognition, 110(3), 293–321. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.09.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehrlich, S. F., & Rayner, K. (1981). Contextual effects on word perception and eye movements during reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(6), 641–655. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90220-6
   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., 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
• Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. D. (2007). The ‘good enough’ approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(1-2), 71–83. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00007.x
   Google Scholar
• Finn, P. J. (1977). Word frequency, information theory, and cloze performance: A transfer feature theory of processing in reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 13(4), 508–537. doi: 10.2307/747510
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischler, I., & Bloom, P. A. (1979). Automatic and attentional processes in the effects of sentence contexts on word recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(1), 1–20. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90534-6
   Google Scholar
• Fischler, I., & Bloom, P. A. (1980). Rapid processing of the meaning of sentences. Memory & Cognition, 8(3), 216–225. doi: 10.3758/BF03197609
   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. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33(4), 465–495. doi: 10.1080/14640748108400804
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foucart, A., Ruiz-Tada, E., & Costa, A. (2015). How do you know I was about to say “book”? Anticipation processes affect speech processing and lexical recognition. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(6), 768–780. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2015.1016047
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox, J. (2003). Effect Displays in R for Generalised Linear Models. Journal of Statistical Software, 8(15), 1–27. URL http://www.jstatsoft.org/v08/i15/. doi: 10.18637/jss.v008.i15
   Google Scholar
• Frisson, S., Rayner, K., & Pickering, M. J. (2005). Effects of contextual predictability and transitional probability on eye movements during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(5), 862–877.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fruchter, J., Linzen, T., Westerlund, M., & Marantz, A. (2015). Lexical preactivation in basic linguistic phrases. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27(10), 1912–1935. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00822
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodman, K. S. (1965). A linguistic study of cues and miscues in reading. Elementary English, 42, 639–643.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodman, K. S. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist, 6(4), 126–135. doi: 10.1080/19388076709556976
   Google Scholar
• Goodman, K. S. (1969). Analysis of oral reading miscues: Applied psycholinguistics. Reading Research Quarterly, 5(1), 9–30. doi: 10.2307/747158
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gough, P. B. (1983). Context, form, and interaction. In K. Rayner (Ed.), Eye movements in reading (pp. 203–211). New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gough, P. B., Alford, J. A., & Holley-Wilcox, P. (1981). Words and context. In O. J. L. Tzeng, & H. Singer (Eds.), Perception of print: Reading research in experimental psychology (pp. 85–102). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Halgren, E. (1990). Insights from evoked potentials into the neuropsychological mechanism of reading. In A. B. Scheibel, & A. F. Wechslcr (Eds.), Neurobiology of higher cognitive function (pp. 103–149). New York: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kleinman, D., Runnqvist, E., & Ferreira, V. S. (2015). Single-word predictions of upcoming language during comprehension: Evidence from the cumulative semantic interference task. Cognitive Psychology, 79, 68–101. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2015.04.001
   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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolers, P. A. (1970). Three stages of reading. In H. Levin, & J. P. Williams (Eds.), Basic studies on reading (pp. 90–118). New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Kuperberg, G. R., & Jaeger, T. F. (2015). 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
• 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. (1993). In the company of other words: Electrophysiological evidence for single-word and sentence context effects. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8(4), 533–572. doi: 10.1080/01690969308407587
   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.
   Google Scholar
• Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (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. 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
• 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
• Lau, E., Almeida, D., Hines, P. C., & Poeppel, D. (2009). A lexical basis for N400 context effects: Evidence from MEG. Brain and Language, 111(3), 161–172. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2009.08.007
   PubMed 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(3), 484–502. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00328
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106(3), 1126–1177. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lopez-Calderon, J., & Luck, S. J. (2014). ERPLAB: An open-source toolbox for the analysis of event-related potentials. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 213. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00213
   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
• Morris, R. K. (2006). Lexical processing and sentence context effects. In M. Traxler, & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 377–401). London: Elsevier.
   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
• Nolan, H., Whelan, R., & Reilly, R. B. (2010). FASTER: Fully automated statistical thresholding for EEG artifact rejection. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 192(1), 152–162. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2010.07.015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Otten, M., Nieuwland, M. S., & Van Berkum, J. J. (2007). Great expectations: Specific lexical anticipation influences the processing of spoken language. BMC Neuroscience, 8, 1. doi: 10.1186/1471-2202-8-89
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Otten, M., & Van Berkum, J. J.A. (2009). Does working memory capacity affect the ability to predict upcoming words in discourse? Brain Research, 1291, 92–101. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2009.07.042
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Otten, M., & Van Berkum, J. 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
• Perfetti, C. A., Goldman, S. A., & Hogaboam, T. W. (1979). Reading skill and the identification of words in discourse context. Memory & Cognition, 7(4), 273–282. doi: 10.3758/BF03197600
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2007). Do people use language production to make predictions during comprehension? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(3), 105–110. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.12.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(04), 329–347. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X12001495
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, K., Slattery, T. J., Drieghe, D., & Liversedge, S. P. (2011). Eye movements and word skipping during reading: Effects of word length and predictability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(2), 514–528.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, K., & Well, A. D. (1996). Effects of contextual constraint on eye movements in reading: A further examination. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3(4), 504–509. doi: 10.3758/BF03214555
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Development Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Rubenstein, H., & Aborn, M. (1958). Learning, prediction, and readability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 42(1), 28–32. doi: 10.1037/h0039808
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanford, A. J., & Sturt, P. (2002). Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(9), 382–386. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01958-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuberth, R. E., & Eimas, P. D. (1977). Effects of context on the classification of words and nonwords. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3(1), 27–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwanenflugel, P. J., & LaCount, K. L. (1988). Semantic relatedness and the scope of facilitation for upcoming words in sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(2), 344–354.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Shoben, E. J. (1985). The influence of sentence constraint on the scope of facilitation for upcoming words. Journal of Memory and Language, 24(2), 232–252. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(85)90026-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shanahan, T., Kamil, M., & Tobin, A. (1982). Cloze as a measure of intersentential comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 17(2), 229–255. doi: 10.2307/747485
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, F. (1971). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read. Holt: Rinehart, Winston, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, F. (2004). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read (6th ed.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, F., & Holmes, D. L. (1971). The independence of letter, word, and meaning identification in reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 6(3), 394–415. doi: 10.2307/747127
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1981). The effect of sentence context on ongoing word recognition: Tests of a two-process theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7(3), 658–672.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1983). On priming by a sentence context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 112(1), 1–36. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.112.1.1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staub, A. (2015). The effect of lexical predictability on eye movements in reading: Critical review and theoretical interpretation. Language and Linguistics Compass, 9(8), 311–327. doi: 10.1111/lnc3.12151
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szewczyk, J. M., & Schriefers, H. (2013). Prediction in language comprehension beyond specific words: An ERP study on sentence comprehension in Polish. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(4), 297–314. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.12.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, W. L. (1953). ‘‘cloze procedure": A new tool for measuring readability. Journalism Quarterly, 30(4), 415–453. doi: 10.1177/107769905303000401
   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
• Traxler, M. J., & Foss, D. J. (2000). Effects of sentence constraint on priming in natural language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26(5), 1266–1282.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tulving, E., & Gold, C. (1963). Stimulus information and contextual information as determinants of tachistoscopic recognition of words. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(4), 319–327. doi: 10.1037/h0048802
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Van Berkum, J. J., Brown, C. M., Zwitserlood, P., Kooijman, V., & Hagoort, P. (2005). Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: Evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(3), 443–467.
   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
• Weber, R. M. (1968). The study of oral reading errors: A survey of the literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 4(1), 96–119. doi: 10.2307/747099
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weber, R. M. (1970). First graders’ use of grammatical context in reading. In H. Levin, & J. Williams (Eds.), Basic studies in reading (pp. 147–163). New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Wicha, N. Y. Y., Bates, E. A., Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2003). Potato not pope: Human brain potential to gender expectation and agreement in Spanish spoken sentences. Neuroscience Letters, 346(3), 165–168. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3940(03)00599-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wicha, N. Y. Y., Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2003). Expecting gender: An event-related brain potential study on the role of grammatical gender in comprehending a line drawing within a written sentence in Spanish. Cortex, 39(3), 483–508. doi: 10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70260-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wicha, N. Y. Y., Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2004). Anticipating words and their gender: An event-related brain potential study of semantic integration, gender expectancy, and gender agreement in Spanish sentence reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(7), 1272–1288. doi: 10.1162/0898929041920487
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York, Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Wlotko, E. W., & Federmeier, K. D. (2013). Two sides of meaning: The scalp-recorded N400 reflects distinct contributions from the cerebral hemispheres. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 181. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00181
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zola, D. (1984). Redundancy and word perception during reading. Perception & Psychophysics, 36(3), 277–284. doi: 10.3758/BF03206369
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar