Effects of prediction error on episodic memory retrieval: evidence from sentence reading and word recognition

References

• Bar, M. (2009). The proactive brain: Memory for predictions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1521), 1235–1243. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0310
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brod, G., Werkle-Bergner, M., & Shing, Y. L. (2013). The influence of prior knowledge on memory: A developmental cognitive neuroscience perspective. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, 139. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2013.00139
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brothers, T., Swaab, T. Y., & Traxler, M. J. (2017). Goals and strategies influence lexical prediction during sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 93, 203–216. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.10.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brysbaert, M., Buchmeier, M., Conrad, M., Jacobs, A. M., Bölte, J., & Böhl, A. (2011). The word frequency effect: A review of recent developments and implications for the choice of frequency estimates in German. Experimental Psychology, 58(5), 412–424. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000123
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang, F., Dell, G. S., & Bock, K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review, 113(2), 234–272. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.2.234
   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(3), 658–668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.10.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craik, F. I., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 268–294. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.268
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeLong, K. A., & Kutas, M. (2020). Comprehending surprising sentences: Sensitivity of post-N400 positivities to contextual congruity and semantic relatedness. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 35(8), 1044–1063. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2019.1708960
   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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.06.016
   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. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1504
   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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90220-6
   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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.06.101
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1990). Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. Multiple senses. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(2), 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(90)90071-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. J. (1999). The processing of metonymy: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(6), 1366–1383. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.25.6.1366
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevelhierarchical models (Vol. 1). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Haeuser, K. I., Kray, J., & Borovsky, A. (2020). Great expectations: Evidence for graded prediction of grammatical gender. In S. Denison, M. Mack, Y. Xu, & B. C. Armstrong (Eds.), Proceedings of the 42nd annual meeting of the Cognitive Science society (pp. 1157–1163). Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Häuser, K. I., Demberg, V., & Kray, J. (2018). Surprisal modulates dual-task performance in older adults: Pupillometry shows age-related trade-offs in task performance and time-course of language processing. Psychology and Aging, 33(8), 1168–1180. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000316
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Höltje, G., Lubahn, B., & Mecklinger, A. (2019). The congruent, the incongruent, and the unexpected: Event-related potentials unveil the processes involved in schematic encoding. Neuropsychologia, 131, 285–293. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.05.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huettig, F., & Guerra, E. (2019). Effects of speech rate, preview time of visual context, and participant instructions reveal strong limits on prediction in language processing. Brain Research, 1706, 196–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2018.11.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuperberg, G. R. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research, 1146, 23–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.12.063
   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. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1102299
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. (2017). Lmertest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Otten, L. J., & Rugg, M. D. (2001). Electrophysiological correlates of memory encoding are task-dependent. Cognitive Brain Research, 12(1), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(01)00015-5
   PubMedGoogle 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09289919408251454
   Google Scholar
• Pickering, M. J., & Gambi, C. (2018). Predicting while comprehending language: A theory and review. Psychological Bulletin, 144(10), 1002–1044. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000158
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popov, V., & Reder, L. M. (2020). Frequency effects on memory: A resource-limited theory. Psychological Review, 127(1), 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000161
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quante, L., Bölte, J., & Zwitserlood, P. (2018). Dissociating predictability, plausibility and possibility of sentence continuations in reading: Evidence from late-positivity ERPs. PeerJ, 6, e5717. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5717
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Development Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Version 3.5.1; Feather Spray [Computer Software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
   Google Scholar
• Ramscar, M., Dye, M., & McCauley, S. M. (2013). Error and expectation in language learning: The curious absence of mouses in adult speech. Language, 760–793. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2013.0068
   Google Scholar
• Ratcliff, R. (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 510–532. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.510
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, K., Warren, T., Juhasz, B. J., & Liversedge, S. P. (2004). The effect of plausibility on eye movements in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(6), 1290–1301. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.6.1290
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reggev, N., Sharoni, R., & Maril, A. (2018). Distinctiveness benefits novelty (and not familiarity), but only up to a limit: The prior knowledge perspective. Cognitive Science, 42(1), 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12498
   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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.08.023
   PubMed 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01958-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schomaker, J., & Meeter, M. (2015). Short- and long-lasting consequences of novelty, deviance and surprise on brain and cognition. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 55, 268–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.05.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shing, Y. L., & Brod, G. (2016). Effects of prior knowledge on memory: Implications for education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 10(3), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12110
   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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.02.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snodgrass, J. G., & Corwin, J. (1988). Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: Applications to dementia and amnesia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117(1), 34–50. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.117.1.34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staresina, B. P., Gray, J. C., & Davachi, L. (2009). Event congruency enhances episodic memory encoding through semantic elaboration and relational binding. Cerebral Cortex, 19(5), 1198–1207. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhn165
   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. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12151
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, W. L. (1953). “Cloze procedure”: A new tool for measuring readability. Journalism Quarterly, 30(4), 415–433.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomaschek, F., Hendrix, P., & Baayen, R. H. (2018). Strategies for addressing collinearity in multivariate linguistic data. Journal of Phonetics, 71, 249–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2018.09.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Urbach, T. P., DeLong, K. A., Chan, W. H., & Kutas, M. (2020). An exploratory data analysis of word form prediction during word-by-word reading. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(34), 20483–20494. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1922028117
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Berkum, J. J. (2010). The brain is a prediction machine that cares about good and bad – Any implications for neuropragmatics? Italian Journal of Linguistics, 22, 181–208. http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0012-C6B0-9
   Google 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.3.443
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van De Meerendonk, N., Kolk, H. H., Vissers, C. T. W., & Chwilla, D. J. (2010). Monitoring in language perception: Mild and strong conflicts elicit different ERP patterns. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(1), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.21170
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Kesteren, M. T., Ruiter, D. J., Fernández, G., & Henson, R. N. (2012). How schema and novelty augment memory formation. Trends in Neurosciences, 35(4), 211–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2012.02.001
   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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.09.015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagner, A. D., Schacter, D. L., Rotte, M., Koutstaal, W., Maril, A., Dale, A. M., Rosen, B. R., & Buckner, R. L. (1998). Building memories: Remembering and forgetting of verbal experiences as predicted by brain activity. Science, 281(5380), 1188–1191. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.281.5380.1188
   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(4), 770–775. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196835
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wlotko, E. W., Federmeier, K. D., & Kutas, M. (2012). To predict or not to predict: Age-related differences in the use of sentential context. Psychology and Aging, 27(4), 975–988. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0029206
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar