The interaction of predictive processing and similarity-based retrieval interference: an ERP study

References

• Alday, P. M. (2019a). How much baseline correction do we need in ERP research? Extended GLM model can replace baseline correction while lifting its limits. Psychophysiology, https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13451
   Google Scholar
• Alday, P. M. (2019b). Philistine documentation. https://philistine.readthedocs.io/_/downloads/en/latest/pdf/
   Google Scholar
• Almor, A. (1999). Noun-phrase anaphora and focus: The informational load hypothesis. Psychological Review, 106(4), 748. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.748
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bastos, A. M., Usrey, W. M., Adams, R. A., Mangun, G. R., Fries, P., & Friston, K. J. (2012). Canonical microcircuits for predictive coding. Neuron, 76(4), 695–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.10.038
   PubMed 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
• Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., Kretzschmar, F., Tune, S., Wang, L., Genç, S., Philipp, M., Roehm, D., & Schlesewsky, M. (2011). Think globally: Cross-linguistic variation in electrophysiological activity during sentence comprehension. Brain & Language, 117(3), 133–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2010.09.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2019). Toward a neurobiologically plausible model of language-related, negative event-related potentials. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00298
   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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2012.01.055
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burkhardt, P., & Roehm, D. (2007). Differential effects of saliency: An event-related brain potential study. Neuroscience Letters, 413(2), 115–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2006.11.038
   PubMed Web of Science ®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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.07.033
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campanelli, L., Van Dyke, J. A., & Marton, K. (2018). The modulatory effect of expectations on memory retrieval during sentence comprehension. In T. T. Rogers, M. Rau, X. Zhu, & C. W. Kalish (Eds.), Proceedings of the 40th Annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1436–1441). Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, A. (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(3), 181–204. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12000477
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coulson, S., King, J. W., & Kutas, M. (1998). Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13(1), 21–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/016909698386582
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craddock, M. (2017, February 25). ERP visualization: Creating topographical scalp maps: part 1. https://www.mattcraddock.com/blog/2017/02/25/erp-visualization-creating-topographical-scalp-maps-part-1/
   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
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2660
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feldman, H., & Friston, K. (2010). Attention, uncertainty, and free-energy. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 4(215), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2010.00215
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fleur, D. S., Flecken, M., Rommers, J., & Nieuwland, M. S. (2020). Definitely saw it coming? The dual nature of the pre-nominal prediction effect. Cognition, 204, 104335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104335
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freunberger, D., & Roehm, D. (2017). The costs of being certain: Brain potential evidence for linguistic preactivation in sentence processing. Psychophysiology, 54(6), 824–832. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10. 1111/psyp.12848
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friston, K. (2005). A theory of cortical responses. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 360(1456), 815–836. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2005.1622
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2787
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In A. P. Marantz, Y. Miyashita, & W. O’Neil (Eds.), Image, language, brain (pp. 95–126). MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gordon, P. C., Grosz, B. J., & Gilliom, L. A. (1993). Pronouns, names, and the centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science, 17(3), 311–347. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1703_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gramfort, A., Luessi, M., Larson, E., Engemann, D., Strohmeier, C., Brodbeck, C., Goj, R., Jas, M., Brooks, T., Parkkonen, L., & Hämäläinen, M. (2013). MEG and EEG data analysis with MNE-python. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2013.00267
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoeks, J., & Brouwer, H. (2014). Electrophysiological research on conversation and discourse processing. In T. M. Holtgraves (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 365–386). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hosemann, J., Herrmann, A., Steinbach, M., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2013). Lexical prediction via forward models: N400 evidence from German sign language. Neuropsychologia, 51(11), 2224–2237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.07.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Husain, S., Vasishth, S., & Srinivasan, N. (2014). Strong expectations cancel locality effects: Evidence from hindi. PLoS One, 9, 7. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0100986
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jäger, L. A., Benz, L., Roeser, J., Dillon, B. W., & Vasishth, S. (2015). Teasing apart retrieval and encoding interference in the processing of anaphors. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00506
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jäger, L. A., Engelmann, F., & Vasishth, S. (2017). Similarity-based interference in sentence comprehension: Literature review and Bayesian meta-analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 316–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassambara, A. (2019). ggcorrplot: Visualization of a Correlation Matrix using ‘ggplot2’. R package version 0.1.3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggcorrplot
   Google Scholar
• Kluender, R., & Kutas, M. (1993). Bridging the gap: Evidence from ERPs on the processing of unbounded dependencies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5(2), 196–214. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1993.5.2.196
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kochari, A. R., & Flecken, M. (2019). Lexical prediction in language comprehension: A replication study of grammatical gender effects in Dutch. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34(2), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2018.1524500
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Konieczny, L. (2000). Locality and parsing complexity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(6), 627–645. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026528912821
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(12), 463–470. https://doi.org/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(14), 621–647. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207(4427), 203–205. https://doi.org/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(59947), 161–163. https://doi.org/10.1038/307161a0
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kutas, M., & Iragui, V. (1998). The N400 in a semantic categorization task across 6 decades. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology/Evoked Potentials Section, 108(5), 456–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-5597(98)00023-9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Laurinavichyute, A., Jäger, L. A., Akinina, Y., Roß, J., & Dragoy, O. (2017). Retrieval and encoding interference: Cross-linguistic evidence from anaphor processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00965
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, E.-K., & Garnsey, S. M. (2015). An ERP study of plural attraction in attachment ambiguity resolution: Evidence for retrieval interference. Journal of Neuroliguistics, 36, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2015.04.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy, R. P., & Keller, F. (2013). Expectation and locality effects in German verb-final structures. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(2), 199–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.02.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, R. L., & Vasishth, S. (2005). An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29(3), 375–419. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_25
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, R. L., Vasishth, S., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2006). Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(10), 447–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.08.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lissón, P., Pregla, D., Nicenboim, B., Paape, D., Van het Nederend, M. L., Burchert, F., Stadie, N., Caplan, D., & Vasishth, S. (2021). A computational evaluation of two models of retrieval processes in sentence processing in aphasia. Cognitive Science, 45(4), e12956. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12956
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, A. E., & McElree, B. (2009). Memory operation that support language comprehension: Evidence from verb-phrase ellipsis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 35(5), 1231–1239. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016271
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, A. E., Nieuwland, M. S., & Carreiras, M. (2012). Event-related brain potentials index cue-based retrieval interference during sentence comprehension. NeuroImage, 59(2), 1859–1869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.08.057
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, A. E., Nieuwland, M. S., & Carreiras, M. (2014). Agreement attraction during comprehension of grammatical sentences: ERP evidence from ellipsis. Brain & Language, 135, 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2014.05.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McElree, B. (2000). Sentence comprehension is mediated by content-addressable memory structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(2), 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005184709695
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Münte, T., Schiltz, K., & Kutas, M. (1998). When temporal terms belie conceptual order. Nature, 395(6697), 71–73. https://doi.org/10.1038/25731
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nairne, J. S. (2002). The myth of the encoding-retrieval match. Memory, 10(5–6), 389–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210244000216
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicenboim, B., & Vasishth, S. (2018). Models of retrieval in sentence comprehension: A computational evaluation using Bayesian hierarchical modeling. Journal of Memory and Language, 99, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.08.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicenboim, B., Vasishth, S., Engelmann, F., & Suckow, K. (2018). Exploratory and confirmatory analyses in sentence processing: A case study of number interference in German. Cognitive Science, 42, 1075–1100. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12589
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicenboim, B., Vasishth, S., & Rösler, F. (2020). Are words pre-activated probabilistically during sentence comprehension? Evidence from new data and a Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis using publicly available data. Neuropsychologia, 142, 107427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2020.107427
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M. S., Coopmans, C. W., & Sommers, R. P. (2019). Distinguishing old from new referents during discourse comprehension: Evidence from ERPs and oscillations. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 13, 398. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00398
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M. S., Politzer-Ahles, S., Heyselaar, E., Segaert, K., Darley, E., Kazanina, N., Von Grebmer Zu Wolfsthurn, S., Bartolozzi, F., Kogan, V., Ito, A., Mézière, D., Barr, D. J., Rousselet, G. A., Ferguson, H. J., Busch-Moreno, S., Fu, X., Tuomainen, J., Kulakova, E., Husband, E. M., … Huettig, F. (2018). Large-scale replication study reveals a limit on probabilistic prediction in language comprehension. eLife, 7, e33468. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.33468
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Otten, M., & Van Berkum, J. J. (2009). Does working memory capacity affect the ability to predict upcoming words in discourse? Brain Research, 1291, 92–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2009.07.042
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pregla, D., Lissón, P., Vasishth, S., Burchert, F., & Stadie, N. (2021). Variability in sentence comprehension in aphasia in German. Brain and Language, 222, 105008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2021.105008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rao, R. P. N., & Ballard, D. H. (1999). Predictive coding in the visual cortex: A functional interpretation of some extra-classical receptive-field effects. Nature Neuroscience, 2(1), 79–87. https://doi.org/10.1038/4580
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Roehm, D., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., Rösler, F., & Schlesewsky, M. (2007). To predict or not to predict: Influences of task and strategy on the processing of semantic relations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(8), 1259–1274. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2007.19.8.1259
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schad, D. J., Hohenstein, S., Vasishth, S., & Kliegl, R. (2020). How to capitalize on a priori contrasts in linear (mixed) models: A tutorial. Journal of Memory and Language, 110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104038
   Google Scholar
• Staub, A. (2010). Eye movements and processing difficulty in object relative clauses. Cognition, 116(1), 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.04.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swaab, T. Y., Camblin, C. C., & Gordon, P. C. (2004). Electrophysiological evidence for reversed lexical repetition effects in language processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(5), 715–726. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892904970744
   PubMed 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.12.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanner, D., Grey, S., & van Hell, J. G. (2017). Dissociating retrieval interference and reanalysis in the P600 during sentence comprehension. Psychophysiology, 54(2), 248–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12788
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, W. L. (1953). ‘Cloze procedure”: A new tool for measuring readability. Journalism Bulletin, 30(4), 415–433. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769905303000401
   Google Scholar
• Van Berkum, J. J., Brown, C. M., & Hagoort, P. (1999). Early referential context effects in sentence processing: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(2), 147–182. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2641
   Web of Science ®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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.3.443
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Berkum, J. J., Koornneef, A. W., Otten, M., & Nieuwland, M. S. (2007). Establishing reference in language comprehension: An electrophysiological perspective. Brain Research, 1146, 158–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.06.091
   PubMed 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). Palgrave MacMillan.
   Google Scholar
• Van Dyke, J. A. (2007). Interference effects from grammatically unavailable constituents during sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 33(2), 407–430. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.2.407
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Dyke, J. A., & Lewis, R. L. (2003). Distinguishing effects of structure and decay on attachment and repair: A cue-based parsing account of recovery from misanalyzed ambiguities. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(3), 285–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00081-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Dyke, J. A., & McElree, B. (2006). Retrieval interference in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(2), 157–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.03.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Dyke, J. A., & McElree, B. (2011). Cue-dependent interference in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 65(3), 247–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.05.002
   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
• Vasishth, S., & Drenhaus, H. (2011). Locality in German. Dialogue & Discourse, 2(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2011.104
   Google Scholar
• Vasishth, S., & Lewis, R. L. (2006). Argument-head distance and processing complexity: Explaining both locality and antilocality effects. Language, 82(4), 767–794. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0236
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vasishth, S., Mertzen, D., Jäger, L. A., & Gelman, A. (2018). The statistical significance filter leads to overoptimistic expectations of replicability. Journal of Memory and Language, 103, 151–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2018.07.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vasishth, S., Nicenboim, B., Engelmann, F., & Burchert, F. (2019). Computational models of retrieval processes in sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(11), 968–982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.09.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vespignani, F., Canal, P., Molinaro, N., Fonda, S., & Cacciari, C. (2010). Predictive mechanisms in idiom comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(8), 1682–1700. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21293
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wicha, N. Y. Y., Bates, E. A., Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2003). Potato not pope: Human brain potentials to gender expectation and agreement in Spanish spoken sentences. Neuroscience Letters, 346(3), 165–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3940(03)00599-8
   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. https://doi.org/10.1162/0898929041920487
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wickham, H. (2016). Ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag New York. https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org
   Google Scholar
• World Medical Association. (2009). Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Jahrbuch für Wissenschaft und Ethik, 14(1), 233–238. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110208856.233
   Google Scholar