Content uploaded by Tamara Y Swaab
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tamara Y Swaab on Feb 16, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Graded expectations: Predictive processing and the adjustment
of expectations during spoken language comprehension
Megan A. Boudewyn &Debra L. Long &Tamara Y. Swaab
#Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2015
Abstract The goal of this study was to investigate the use of
the local and global contexts for incoming words during lis-
tening comprehension. Local context was manipulated by pre-
senting a target noun (e.g., Bcake,^Bveggies^) that was pre-
ceded by a word that described a prototypical or atypical fea-
ture of the noun (e.g., Bsweet,^Bhealthy^). Global context was
manipulated by presenting the noun in a scenario that was
consistent or inconsistent with the critical noun (e.g., a birth-
day party). Event-related potentials (ERPs) were examined at
the feature word and at the critical noun. An N400 effect was
found at the feature word, reflectingthe effect of compatibility
with the global context. Global predictability and the local
feature word consistency interacted at the critical noun: A
larger N200 was found to nouns that mismatched predictions
when the context was maximally constraining, relative to
nouns in the other conditions. A graded N400 response was
observed at the critical noun, modulated by global predictabil-
ity and feature consistency. Finally, post-N400 positivity ef-
fects of context updating were observed to nouns that were
supported by one contextual cue (global/local) but were un-
supported by the other. These results indicate that (1)incoming
words that are compatible with context-based expectations
receive a processing benefit; (2)when the context is sufficient-
ly constraining, specific lexical items may be activated; and
(3)listeners dynamically adjust their expectations when input
is inconsistent with their predictions, provided that the incon-
sistency has some level of support from either the global or the
local context.
Keywords Prediction .Discourse .Semantics .ERPs
Intruction
It has long been recognized that contextual constraint has a
rapid facilitatory effect on the processing of incoming words.
The processing of words in reading and listening is modulated
by the situations that are described in discourse (global con-
text) and the meanings of adjacent words (local context)
(Boudewyn, Gordon, Long, Polse, & Swaab, 2012;
Camblin, Gordon, & Swaab, 2007; Federmeier & Kutas,
1999; van Berkum, Hagoort, & Brown, 1999; van Berkum,
Zwitserlood, Hagoort, & Brown, 2003; Van Petten, 1993;Van
Petten, Weckerly, McIsaac, & Kutas, 1997). However, the role
of prediction in language processing has been a matter of
considerable debate. On the one hand, the nearly unlimited
number of possible continuations to any sentence has led
some theorists to argue that predictive mechanisms would be
impractical and unlikely to be successful (Forster, 1981;
Jackendoff, 2002). On the other hand, intuition and anecdotal
experience would suggest that language is often predictable,
enabling us to complete a conversational partner’ssentences
or to anticipate an event in a story. In addition, numerous
studies have suggested that individuals can make predictions
about language input during comprehension under certain cir-
cumstances (Brothers, Swaab, & Traxler, 2015;DeLong,
Urbach, & Kutas, 2005; van Berkum, Brown, Zwitserlood,
Kooijman, & Hagoort, 2005; Wicha, Moreno, & Kutas,
2004; see Lau, Holcomb, & Kuperberg, 2013, for effects of
prediction in a word-priming paradigm). It seems that these
predictions can be made at various levels, including the acti-
vation of upcoming events and event structure, semantic fea-
tures, or specific lexical forms (Kuperberg, 2013). In the pres-
ent study, we focus on the possibility that prediction plays an
important role in processing of the semantic features and lex-
ical forms of incoming words.
This study had three main goals. First, we used event-
related potentials (ERPs) and a story-listening paradigm in
M. A. Boudewyn (*):D. L. Long :T. Y. Swaab
University of California, Davis, California
e-mail: maboudewyn@ucdavis.edu
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci
DOI 10.3758/s13415-015-0340-0
order to examine semantic feature prediction during compre-
hension. Second, we investigated the contributions of two
Blevels^of context (the global, discourse context and the lo-
cal, Bprime word^context) to two Blevels^of prediction: the
activation of semantic features and the prediction of specific
word forms. Finally, we examined the costs that may be asso-
ciated with disconfirmed predictions. We introduce each of
these issues in turn.
Semantic feature prediction
Evidence for activation of the semantic features of incoming
words has come from several ERP studies that have shown
that the processing of incoming words in context is facilitated
when words that are unpredictable (or even incongruent) in
the context share some semantic features with predictable
words (Federmeier, 2007; Federmeier & Kutas, 1999;
Federmeier,Kutas,&Schul,2010; Federmeier, Wlotko, De
Ochoa-Dewald, & Kutas, 2007; Otten & Van Berkum, 2007;
Paczynski & Kuperberg, 2012). For example, readers have
shown a graded N400
1
effect as a function of semantic feature
overlap with predictable words (e.g., Federmeier & Kutas,
1999). As compared to predictable words (e.g., Bpalms^in
the context of BThey wanted the hotel to look more like a
tropical resort. Along the driveway they planted. . .^), unex-
pected but within-category words (e.g., Bpines^) elicit a small-
er N400 than do unexpected different-category words (e.g.,
Btulips^) (e.g., Federmeier & Kutas, 1999). In another study,
readers showed a reduced N400 for event-related words (e.g.,
Bluggage^in the context of a Btravel^scenario) as compared
to event-unrelated words (e.g., Bvegetables^)evenwhenboth
were implausible (and importantly, unpredictable), given their
placement within a particular sentence (e.g., BIt can take sev-
eral hours to get through luggage/vegetables^) (Metusalem
et al., 2012; see Nieuwland & Van Berkum, 2005,and
Paczynski & Kuperberg, 2012, for related manipulations
resulting in modulations of the N400 for scenario-related but
lexically unpredictable words). The anticipation of semantic
features was probed in the present study by examining the
ERP response to words that were not themselves predictable
but that represented semantic features of highly predictable
nouns that were presented farther downstream. We construct-
ed two-sentence stories in which a word in the second sen-
tence (target noun) was highly predictable (e.g., Bcake^)and
was preceded by a feature word that was a typical or atypical
feature of the critical noun (Bsweet^or Bhealthy^), as in
Example(a) below. See Table 1for additional examples.
(a) Frank was throwing a birthday party, and he had made
the dessert from scratch. After everyone sang, he sliced
up some. . .
... sweet/healthy and tasty cake/veggies that looked
delicious.
If semantic features are activated given a constraining dis-
course context, then the feature words (sweet/healthy) should
show an N400 effect of feature compatibility, even though the
feature words are unpredictable. Specifically, if predictions
about the upcoming input include context-compatible seman-
tic features, then compatible-feature words such as Bsweet^
should result in a reduced N400 relative to incompatible-
feature words such as Bhealthy.^
Predictability based on global and local context
A second goal of the study was to examine the extents to
which the global, discourse context and the local, word-level
context contribute to two types of predictions: lexical predic-
tion and semantic feature prediction. Lexical prediction refers
to the anticipation of a specific word, including its form, prior
to encountering that word. Semantic feature prediction refers
to a broader category of expectations about the semantic in-
formation that is likely to be encountered, but falls short of a
1
The N400 is a negative-going ERP that is reduced in amplitude as a
function of semantic fit and lexical properties (see Kutas & Federmeier,
2000,2011, for reviews; Swaab, Ledoux, Camblin, & Boudewyn, 2012).
Tabl e 1 Sample stimuli across the four conditions
Context: Frank was throwing a birthday party, and he had made the
dessert from scratch. After everyone sang, he sliced up some…
Globally Predictable/Locally Consistent:
…sweet and tasty cake that looked delicious.
Globally Predictable/Locally Inconsistent:
…healthy and tasty cake that looked delicious.
Globally Unpredictable/Locally Consistent:
…healthy and tasty veggies that looked delicious.
Globally Unpredictable/Locally Inconsistent:
…sweet and tasty veggies that looked delicious.
True/False: Frank planned to make hamburgers for the party.
Context: In the summertime, Ron loves to barbecue and drink Coronas, so
he always keeps some beer and citrus to go with it in the fridge. His
drink is not complete unless he has some…
Globally Predictable/Locally Consistent:
…slices of refreshing lime in it.
Globally Predictable/Locally Inconsistent:
…cubes of refreshing lime in it.
Globally Unpredictable/Locally Consistent:
…cubes of refreshing ice in it.
Globally Unpredictable/Locally Inconsistent:
…slices of refreshing ice in it.
True/False: Ron likes to barbecue.
Critical words are underlined.
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci
specific, word-form prediction. As was discussed in the
previous section, the results of several studies have indi-
cated that readers/listeners activate semantic features dur-
ing comprehension (Federmeier, 2007;Federmeier&
Kutas, 1999; Federmeier et al., 2010; Federmeier et al.,
2007; Metusalem et al., 2012; Nieuwland & Van Berkum,
2005; Otten & Van Berkum, 2007; Paczynski &
Kuperberg, 2012). Recent evidence has also suggested that
readers and listeners make specific lexical predictions un-
der some circumstances (Brothers et al., 2015;DeLong
et al., 2005; van Berkum et al., 2005; Wicha et al., 2004).
For example, processing difficulties have been found when
the phonological or syntactic markers of incoming words
are inconsistent with those of predicted words (DeLong
et al., 2005; Szewczyk & Schriefers, 2013; van Berkum
et al., 2005; Wicha et al., 2004).
In the present study, we addressed the following question:
When the discourse context is highly constraining, how do
global and local sources of contextual information interact to
influence expectations about the upcoming input? Global, dis-
course context appears to exert a powerful influence on the
processing of incoming words (even when the context is not
constraining), whereas the local context immediately preced-
ing an incoming word appears to exert a relatively weaker
influence on processing (Boudewyn et al., 2012; Camblin
et al., 2007; although there is substantial variability in the
relative weighting of contextual information—e.g.,
Boudewyn, Long, & Swaab, 2013). In constraining contexts,
lexical predictions based on the global discourse message may
Btrump^local inconsistencies: For example, a strong expecta-
tion for Bcake^that has developed over the course of a birth-
day scenario may not be affected by the presence of a lone
incompatible semantic feature, such as Bhealthy.^
To investigate this issue, we examined nouns (Bcake/veg-
gies,^in the example above) that followed semantic feature
words (Bsweet/healthy^) in the second sentence of each story
context. If lexical predictions that are based on global context
are robust enough to withstand brief, local inconsistencies,
then an N400 response to nouns in the Bhealthy and tasty
cake^condition should be reduced to the same extent as in
the Bsweet and tasty cake^condition. However, the presence
of conflicting local context may serve to weaken predictions
that are based on the global, discourse context. In that case, the
processing of nouns in the Bhealthy and tasty cake^condition
should not receive the same level of facilitation as the process-
ing of nouns in the Bsweet and tasty cake^condition, resulting
in an N400 effect when comparing the two. Likewise, a dis-
course-incompatible, but locally consistent, feature should fa-
cilitate the processing of nouns in the Bhealthy and tasty
veggies^condition, relative to the Bsweet and tasty veggies^
condition. This pattern of results would indicate that listeners
dynamically update their expectations, even when the global
context is highly constraining, and importantly, that they do so
quickly after receiving just one word of conflicting local
context.
Disconfirmed predictions
The third goal of this study was to investigate the processing
costs that may be associated with disconfirmed predictions,
and the extent to which they are triggered by prediction-
inconsistent global and local cues. If readers and listeners
activate upcoming semantic features and/or specific lexical
items, then encountering input that is either partially or fully
at odds with those expectations should have an impact on
processing. We suggest that the impact of unexpected input
on processing may take several forms, depending on the
strength of the prediction and the potential for integration
and updating of expectations based on the unexpected input.
First, a strong prediction for a specific word form that is
disconfirmed should have an early influence on the processing
associated with detection of the mismatch between the expect-
ed and received forms. Indeed, ERP differences have been
observed within a few hundred milliseconds of encountering
an incoming word in situations in which it is possible to
Bdiagnose^a mismatch between the expected and received
input relatively early, as is the case in syntactic category vio-
lations (Lau, Stroud, Plesch, & Phillips, 2006;vanBerkum
et al., 2005). Early effects (N200s) have also been observed in
spoken language when phonemic input has not matched the
most predictable word form
2
(Connolly & Phillips, 1994;
Diaz & Swaab, 2007; van den Brink, Brown, & Hagoort,
2001; see also Brothers et al., 2015, for a similar effect during
reading).
In the present study, an early effect (N200) should be ob-
served at the critical nouns in the second sentence of the story
contexts (cake/veggies, in the example above) if listeners
make specific lexical predictions (that include a word form).
Namely, nouns that do not match the most expected word
form should elicit a larger N200 than would nouns that are
consistent with the most expected word form (i.e., the word
form veggies is an easily detected mismatch to the most glob-
ally predicted word, cake). However, if listeners are quickly
influenced by the immediately preceding (local) context as
well as by the global, discourse context, then we predict that
the global and local context effects will interact. Only the most
constraining condition (when both the global and local con-
texts are aligned to predict the same item) will elicit an early
2
These early effects might be characterized as indicative of the cost
associated with processing the unexpected versus the expected form,
but it would also be reasonable to characterize these effects as indicative
of the Black of benefit^that the unexpected forms received relative to the
expected forms.
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci
effect, such that a larger early negativity will be observed for
nouns that mismatch the prediction (sweet and tasty VEGG
IES) than for nouns that match the prediction (sweet and tasty
CAKE).
Second, disconfirmed predictions may also lead to later
processing costs that are associated with updating the devel-
oping discourse representation to accommodate the unexpect-
ed input. This type of cost has been an issue of considerable
interest following the recent observation of late positive ERP
deflections in response to unexpected words in context (Van
Petten & Luka, 2012). These late effects, termed post-N400
positivities (PNPs), have been interpreted as reflecting the
costs of encountering input that is unexpected, but still plau-
sible, although the precise nature of the costs has yet to be
determined. One possibility is that the PNP reflects inhibitory
processes that are associated with suppressing the predicted,
but not encountered, word (Kutas, 1993). Another (non-mu-
tually-exclusive) explanation is that the PNP reflects process-
ing that is required in order to discard previous expectations
and update representations after receiving input that is plausi-
ble, but not consistent with, a prediction (Kuperberg, 2013). If
global and local contexts combine to influence the strength of
predictions about the upcoming input, then, according to ei-
ther account, a PNP should be elicited by the globally unpre-
dictable nouns following locally inconsistent feature words
(sweet and tasty VEGGIES), since this is the condition in
which listeners are most likely to predict a specific lexical
item. A PNP should also be elicited by the other two condi-
tions that contain a conflicting cue (healthy and tasty CAKE,
and healthy and tasty VEGGIES), because they entail a vio-
lation of expectations that may require updating the discourse
representation, as well.
Thus, several ERP effects have been identified as possible
signatures of predictive processing, most notably: (1)early
effects (such as the N200), which may reflect the initial detec-
tion of a disconfirmed prediction; (2)the N400, which is re-
duced as a function of contextual fit; and (3) late effects in the
PNP window, which is the least well-characterized effect
to date, but which appears to be related to costs that are
associated with disconfirmed predictions. In the present
study, we used these ERP effects to investigate our three
main questions of interest about prediction during listen-
ing comprehension.
Method
Participants
Twenty undergraduates (15 female, five male) from the
University of California, Davis, gave informed consent and
participated for course credit. All were right-handed, native
English speakers, with no reported problems with hearing/
reading nor a history of neurological/psychological disorders
(average age = 18.63, range = 18–20).
Materials
The materials consisted of 132 two-sentence stories, in which
two words in the second sentence were manipulated: a feature
word, and a critical noun that occurred a few words later. The
ERPs were time-locked to the feature words (two conditions)
and to the critical nouns (four conditions). To create the
stories, two variables were orthogonally manipulated: global
predictability and local consistency. This resulted in four con-
ditions: globally predictable/locally consistent, globally
predictable/locally inconsistent, globally unpredictable/
locally consistent, and globally unpredictable/locally incon-
sistent (see Table 1for examples).
The critical words never appeared in a sentence-final posi-
tion. Stories were divided into four lists and counterbalanced
such that each list contained an equal number of stories in each
condition and only one condition per set was included in each
list. In addition, 120 filler stories were included; a subset of
these (40 stories) included either congruent or anomalous
words midway through the second sentence. These were in-
cluded in order to minimize the salience of the experimental
manipulation. Globally predictable nouns were highly predict-
able midway through the second sentence of each story, and
globally unpredictable nouns were unexpected at that same
point. This was established by a norming study, in which 45
participants (who did not participate in the ERP study) re-
ceived the stories with the second sentence truncated before
the highly predictable noun. They were asked to generate a
word that best completed the story. The results showed that
each story could be completed at that point by a highly pre-
dictable noun (cloze probability = 78 %). The unpredictable
nouns were semantically and syntactically possible continua-
tions of the story but had a cloze probability of 0 %. Critically,
neither the globally predictable nor the globally unpredictable
nouns were ever presented at that point in the story; instead, a
feature word (e.g., sweet) replaced the noun. The feature
word was either locally consistent with the globally pre-
dictable noun or locally consistent with the globally un-
predictable noun. All of the feature words were unex-
pected at that point, whether the norming participants
were asked to provide a single-word continuation (cloze
probability = 0.01 %) or a multiple-word continuation
(cloze probability= 1.81 %).
Because the unpredictability of the feature words was crit-
ical to our experimental manipulation, we also conducted a
modified cloze test in order to rule out the possibility that
repeated exposure to passages containing feature words that
were followed by nouns would lead participants to predict the
feature words. Sixty participants who did not participate in the
previous norming tests or in the ERP study were asked to
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci
complete the stories, with no constraints on the number of
words allowed for the continuations. Four lists were created,
such that in a given list, 25 % of the experimental stories were
truncated at the point at which the critical nouns were highly
predictable and the feature words were unpredictable; the rest
of the experimental stories were truncated prior to the final
word in the second sentence (i.e., after the feature word/noun
combination). We included filler stories so that a high propor-
tion of the stories in a list would contain feature word/noun
combinations (85 %), in order to maximize the opportunity for
participants to pick up on this combination and begin to pre-
dict the feature words themselves. Despite this list construc-
tion, the results confirmed that following repeated exposure to
stories containing feature word/noun combinations, all feature
words were lexically unexpected (cloze probability = 0.01 %).
A feature word described a prototypical semantic feature of
the predictable or unpredictable noun, and the critical noun
was moved to a position at least one word after the unpredict-
able feature word (average = 2.2, range = 1–6). Feature words
were either selected from published lists of feature norms
(McRae, Cree, Seidenberg, & McNorgan, 2005)orgenerated
for this study, and they were verified as characteristic of the
nouns in a separate norming study (n=60).Participantswere
asked to rate how characteristic each feature word was of its
noun on a 7-point scale (1 = very characteristic,7=very
uncharacteristic). Compatible feature words were rated as
highly characteristic of the predictable nouns (average =
1.94, range = 1–3.73) and highly uncharacteristic of the un-
predictable nouns (average = 6.14, range = 4.06–7) (p<.001).
In contrast, incompatible feature words were rated as highly
characteristic of the unpredictable nouns (average = 1.86,
range = 1–3.86) and highly uncharacteristic of the predictable
nouns (average = 5.86, range = 4–7; p<.001).
Feature words were matched on length (compatible: aver-
age = 6.37, range = 3–13; incompatible: average = 6.28, range
=3–12; p=.72) and frequency (compatible: average = 2.25,
range = 0–3.8; incompatible: average = 2.17, range = 0–3.9; p
=.46), using the LG10CD measure from the SUBTLEXus
database (http://expsy.ugent.be/subtlexus/). The feature
words were also matched for number of syllables
(compatible: average = 1.75, range = 1–5; incompatible:
average = 1.78, range = 1–4) and number of phonemes
(compatible: average = 4.49, range = 2–9; incompatible:
average = 4.5, range = 2–10), using the MRC
Psycholinguistic Database (http://websites.psychology.uwa.
edu.au/school/MRCDatabase/). All stimuli were recorded for
spoken presentation and were then matched on spoken
duration (milliseconds). This resulted in the exclusion of 15
items. The final stimulus set on which all analyses were
performed contained 117 items (average duration:
compatible, 484.04, range = 282–983; incompatible, 505.6,
range = 240–879; p=.2). Nouns were matched on the same
parameters: length (predictable: average = 5.86, range = 3–13;
unpredictable: average = 6.16, range = 3–12; p=.2),
frequency (predictable: average = 2.26, range = 0–3.78;
unpredictable: average = 2.19, range = 0–3.9; p=.42),
number of syllables (predictable: average = 1.77, range = 1–
4; unpredictable: average = 1.71; range = 1–4), number of
phonemes (predictable: average = 4.47, range = 2–8;
unpredictable: average = 4.44, range = 2–8) and spoken
duration (predictable: average = 509.65, range = 301–780;
unpredictable: average = 510.78, range = 253–813; p=.94).
All stimuli were spoken by a female with a natural inflec-
tion and speaking rate. Stimuli were recorded using a Schoeps
MK2 microphone and Sound Devices USBPre A/D (44,
100 Hz, 16 bit) in a sound-attenuating recording booth. The
acoustic onset and offset of each critical word was determined
by visual inspection of the speech waveform and by listening,
using speech-editing software (Audacity, by Soundforge). The
context sentence (Sentence 1) and the critical sentence
(Sentence 2) of each story were recorded separately. A 1-s
silence was inserted between the two sentences using
Presentation software, as has been done in previous work to
approximate the duration of naturally produced pauses
(Boudewyn et al., 2012). True/false comprehension questions
were included after each story; these questions did not focus
on the critical words. The correct answer to half of the ques-
tions was true.
Procedure
Participants listened to the stories while sitting in an electri-
cally shielded, sound-attenuating booth. Stories were present-
ed through Beyer dynamic headphones using the Presentation
software (www.neurobs.com/). Trials began with a white
fixation cross in 16-point Tahoma font in the center of a black
screen situated 100 cm in front of participants. The fixation
cross appeared on the screen 1,000 ms before story onset and
remained visible on the screen throughout story presentation
and for 1,000 ms after. The cross was then replaced by a
comprehension question. Participants responded by pressing
one of two keys on a keyboard, corresponding to Btrue^or
Bfalse^(left corner BZ^for true and right corner BM^for
false). Comprehension questions remained on the screen until
participants had made a response, which triggered the start of
the next trial.
Participants were asked to remain alert and focused dur-
ing the experiment and to fixate on the white fixation cross
whenever it was present. They were instructed that they
were free to make eye movements during the comprehen-
sion question portion of the trials. Each session was divid-
ed into 11 blocks to allow for short breaks. Event codes
were sent out at the onset of the critical feature words and
nouns and used for offline averaging of the electroenceph-
alography (EEG) signal.
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci
ERP recording and data reduction The EEG was recorded
from 29 tin electrodes in an elastic cap (Electro-Cap
International), and from electrodes on the outer canthi, below
and above the left eye (to monitor eye movements and blinks),
and on both mastoids. The right mastoid served as the record-
ing reference, and the left was used for offline algebraic re-
referencing (to the average of both mastoids) for all channels
except the eye channels. The eye channels were referenced to
each other (above-left to below-left, and left outer canthus to
right outer canthus). The EEG signal was amplified with
band-pass cutoffs at 0.01 and 30 Hz and was digitized online
at a sampling rate of 250 Hz (Neuroscan Synamps 2).
Impedances were kept below 5Ω.
Data processing was performed using MATLAB, with the
EEGLAB toolbox and ERPlab plugin (Lopez-Calderon &
Luck, 2014) and custom MATLAB and UNIX routines.
Independent component analysis (ICA) artifact correction
was used to correct for eye blinks (participants were not
instructed to refrain from blinking during the experiment).
The single-trial waveforms were screened for amplifier
blocking, muscle artifacts, and horizontal eye movements
over epochs of 1,200 ms, starting 200 ms before the onset of
the critical word. Average ERPs were computed over all
artifact-free trials in the four conditions. All ERPs were fil-
tered offline with a Gaussian low-pass filter with a 25-Hz half-
amplitude cutoff. Excessive noise in the data from one partic-
ipant resulted in that participant being excluded from all anal-
yses, since too few artifact-free trials remained to achieve an
acceptable signal-to-noise ratio after artifact removal.
Results
The participants were highly accurate on the comprehension
questions, scoring an average of 94.38 % (range = 87.7 %–
97.9 %).
ERPs to the feature words are displayed in Fig. 1;ERPsto
the critical nouns are displayed in Fig. 2. Simple-effect com-
parisons for ERPs at the critical nouns are displayed in Fig. 3.
Figure 4depicts differences in the topographic distribution of
the N200 and N400 responses to the critical nouns.
Separate repeated measures analyses of variance
(rANOVAs) were conducted for the feature words and the
critical nouns over the midline (Fz, Cz, Pz, POz), medial
(FC1, FC2, C3, C4, CP1, CP2), and lateral (F3, F4, FC5,
FC6, CP5, CP6, P3, P4) electrode columns. The within-
subjects variable, feature compatibility (compatible, incom-
patible), was used in the rANOVA for the feature-
continuation analysis. For the critical-noun analysis, the
within-subjects variables, global predictability (predictable,
unpredictable) and local consistency (consistent, inconsis-
tent), were included. All rANOVAs included topographic dis-
tribution factors: For the midline column, this was Electrode
Site (four levels), and for the medial and lateral analyses, these
were Hemisphere (left vs. right) and Anteriority (medial
[fronto-central, centro-parietal, parietal] vs. lateral [frontal,
fronto-central, centro-parietal, parietal]). A Greenhouse–
Geisser correction was used for Ftests with more than one
degree of freedom in the numerator. The rANOVAs were con-
ducted on the mean amplitudes in three time windows: the
N200 (200–300 ms), the N400 (300–600 ms), and the PNP
(900–1,200 ms). Significant interactions in the critical-noun
analysis were followed with simple-effect comparisons across
the same electrode sites and time windows. The results are
summarized below and are presented in full in Table 2(feature
words) and in Tables 3,4,and5(critical nouns).
Feature words
We found no significant effect of feature compatibility at any
electrode column in the N200 time window. In the N400 win-
dow, all electrode columns displayed a significant main effect
of feature compatibility (midline, medial, lateral), such that
compatible features showed a reduced negative deflection rel-
ative to incompatible features. In the PNP window, a signifi-
cant main effect of feature compatibility emerged at the medial
Fig. 1 Feature compatibility effect at the first time lock (feature words).
Representative frontal, central, and posterior midline electrode sites are
shown (Fz, Cz, and Pz, respectively). Negative is plotted up
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci
and lateral columns, such that compatible features continued
to show a reduced negative deflection relative to incompatible
features.
Critical nouns
We observed significant effects of global predictability at
the midline and lateral electrode columns in the N200 win-
dow, such that predictable nouns showed a reduced nega-
tive deflection relative to unpredictable nouns; for lateral
sites, we also found a significant Global Predictability ×
Anteriority × Hemisphere interaction. There were no ef-
fects of local consistency. Global predictability and local
consistency significantly interacted at both medial and lat-
eral electrode sites. Follow-up analyses comparing locally
consistent to locally inconsistent words showed (a)no ef-
fect for globally predictable words (sweet and tasty CAKE
vs. healthy and tasty CAKE) and (b)a Local Consistency ×
Anteriority × Hemisphere interaction for globally unpre-
dictable words (healthy and tasty VEGGIES vs. sweet
and tasty VEGGIES) at lateral electrode sites, such that
locally consistent nouns showed a smaller negative deflec-
tion at right anterior electrode sites than did locally incon-
sistent nouns. Follow-up analyses comparing globally pre-
dictable to globally unpredictable words showed (a)a dif-
ference between locally consistent words (sweet and tasty
CAKE vs. healthy and tasty VEGGIES) at the midline
column, such that globally predictable words showed a
smaller negative deflection than did globally unpredictable
words, and (b)a difference between locally inconsistent
words (healthy and tasty CAKE vs. sweet and tasty
VEGGIES) at all columns, such that globally predictable
words showed a smaller negative deflection than did glob-
ally unpredictable words.
Fig. 2 Event-related potentials (ERPs) to the second time lock (critical nouns) in all four conditions. All electrodes tested are shown (midline, medial,
and lateral columns). Negative is plotted up
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci
In the N400, we observed significant effects of global pre-
dictability at all columns (midline, medial, lateral), such that
predictable nouns showed a reduced negative deflection rela-
tive to unpredictable nouns. This effect was maximal at pos-
terior electrodes, as can be seen in Fig. 2, and interacted with
topographic factors (see Table 3). There were also significant
effects of local consistency at all columns. Global predictabil-
ity and local consistency interacted at medial and lateral elec-
trode sites; at lateral sites,an additional Global Predictability ×
Local Consistency × Anteriority × Hemisphere interaction
was apparent. Follow-up analyses comparing locally consis-
tent to locally inconsistent words showed (a)a difference be-
tween globally predictable words (sweet and tasty CAKE vs.
healthy and tasty CAKE) at right posterior lateral electrode
sites and (b)a difference between globally unpredictable
words (healthy and tasty VEGGIES vs. sweet and tasty
VEGGIES) at all electrode columns. Follow-up analyses com-
paring globally predictable to globally unpredictable words
showed (a)a difference between the two locally consistent
conditions (sweet and tasty CAKE vs. healthy and tasty
VEGGIES) at all electrode columns and (b)a difference be-
tween the two locally inconsistent conditions (healthy and
tasty CAKE vs. sweet and tasty VEGGIES) at all electrode
columns.
In the PNP window, no significant effect of global predict-
ability emerged at any electrode column, whereas the effect of
local consistency significantly interacted with topographic
factors at medial and lateral sites. Global predictability and
local consistency significantly interacted at all electrode col-
umns. Follow-up analyses comparing locally consistent to lo-
cally inconsistent words showed (a) a difference between the
two globally predictable conditions (sweet and tasty CAKE
vs. healthy and tasty CAKE) at all electrode columns, such
that locally inconsistent words showed a larger positive de-
flection than did locally consistent words, and (b) a difference
between the two globally unpredictable conditions (healthy
and tasty VEGGIES vs. sweet and tasty VEGGIES) at lateral
electrode sites, such that locally inconsistent nouns showed a
greater positive deflection than did locally consistent nouns at
right lateral sites. Follow-up analyses comparing globally pre-
dictable to globally unpredictable words showed (a) no differ-
ence between the two locally consistent conditions (sweet and
tasty CAKE vs. healthy and tasty VEGGIES) at any electrode
column and (b) a difference between the two locally inconsis-
tent conditions (healthy and tasty CAKE vs. sweet and tasty
VEGGIES) at all electrode columns, such that globally pre-
dictable words showed a greater positive deflection than did
globally unpredictable words.
Topographic comparison of N200 and N400 As can be seen
in Figs. 2and 4andinTables3,4,and5, there were
substantial differences between the N200 and N400 effects
at the critical noun, including differences in topographic
distribution. In order to determine whether the differences
in scalp distributions were statistically significant, a
vector-scaling approach was adopted in which the size of
the effects was normalized across participants (McCarthy
& Wood, 1985; Ruchkin, Johnson, & Friedman, 1999;but
see Urbach & Kutas, 2002). The analyses reported above
showed that the N200 effect was driven primarily by a
larger negative deflection to the globally unpredictable/
locally inconsistent (sweet and tasty VEGGIES) condition
than to all other conditions; this condition also showed the
largest negative deflection in the N400 time window. The
difference can be seen in Fig. 2. In order to determine
whether responses in this condition were distinct in terms
of distributions across the scalp, the vector-scaled differ-
ence between the globally unpredictable/locally inconsis-
tent condition and the average of the three other conditions
was used. This difference was the dependent measure in
rANOVAs at the midline, medial, and lateral columns; time
window was included as a within-subjects variable (N200,
N400), along with the same topographic factors described
above. Interactions of time window and the topographic
factors would indicate significant differences in the distri-
butions of the interaction across the N200 and N400 time
windows.
Fig. 3 Simple-effects comparisons at the second time lock (critical
nouns). A representative central electrode site is shown. Negative is
plotted up
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci
Consistent with the topographic distribution of the effects
depicted in Fig. 4, we found a significant Time Window ×
Anteriority interaction at lateral electrode sites [F(3, 54) =
3.702, p< .5]. This reflects the more frontal distribution of
the N200 effect, in contrast to the more posterior distribution
of the N400 effect.
Discussion
Our goal in this study was to examine the influence of local
and global contexts on prediction in listening comprehension.
Specifically, we sought (1)to determine the extent to which
the semantic features of predictable nouns were activated be-
fore the nouns appeared, (2)to investigate the interaction be-
tween global and local context on the prediction of semantic
features and specific word forms, and (3)to examine process-
ing costs that might be associated with encountering unex-
pected inputs. We the examined ERPs at two points during
the second sentence of short spoken stories. The first time lock
was to unpredictable words that were prototypical semantic
features of upcoming, critical nouns. The second time lock
was to the critical nouns themselves, which occurred a few
words downstream from the feature words and were either
highly predictable or unpredictable in the global context.
Three ERP effects were of interest: the N200 (200–300 ms
post-word-onset), N400 (300–600 ms post-word-onset), and
PNP (following the N400; 900–1,200 ms post-word-onset).
We discuss effects for each time lock and time window in turn.
Accessibility of semantic features prior to critical words
Previous studies have shown that processing is facilitated for
words that share semantic features with those that are the best
completion of a sentence (e.g., Bpines^in a sentence in which
Bpalms^is the best completion; Federmeier & Kutas, 1999).
In the present study, we examined whether or not the process-
ing of semantic features was facilitated for words that were
unpredictable, given the preceding context, and that occurred
before the critical (predictable) noun was heard. Since the
feature words themselves were not predictable, we did not
Fig. 4 Event-related potential (ERP) plots: The N200 and N400 effects
for the globally unpredictable/locally inconsistent (sweet and
tasty VEGGIES) condition, relative to the average of all other conditions,
are shown at left. The frontal electrode at which the N200 effect was
maximal (FC2) is shown at top left and highlighted with a white dot on
the topographic map at top right. The electrode at which the N400 effect
was maximal (Pz) is shown at bottom left, and highlighted with a white
dot on the topographic map at bottom right. The N200 window (200–
300 ms) and N400 window (300–600 ms) are highlighted in shaded gray
regions. Negative is plotted up. The topographic distributions of the glob-
ally unpredictable/locally inconsistent condition (sweet and
tasty VEGGIES) minus all other conditions are shown at right; the distri-
bution of the N200 effect is shown at top right, and the distribution of the
N400 effect is shown at bottom right
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci
expect an N200 effect, which would have reflected a mis-
match between the predicted word and the word that was
actually presented. If, however, listeners activated the seman-
tic features of the predictable nouns on the basis of the global
context, then the N400 amplitude shouldbe reduced for words
that were prototypical features of globally predictable nouns,
relative to those that were features of globally unpredictable
nouns.
Consistent with our predictions, we observed no effect in
the N200 window for the feature words. However, we did
observe a significant N400 effect offeature compatibility, with
compatible feature words showing a reduced N400 relative to
incompatible feature words. This finding demonstrates that
the semantic features of highly predictable words are accessi-
ble before the predictable word is heard. Our results are con-
sistent with the current thinking about predictive processing
during language comprehension, which posits that predictions
about upcoming language input are made at different levels,
including the semantic feature level (Kuperberg, 2013;
Pickering & Garrod, 2013).
Prediction of lexical form
Our results showed that the amplitude of the N200 was sig-
nificantly greater for critical words that were both globally
unpredictable and locally unsupported than for all other con-
ditions (e.g., sweet and tasty VEGGIES; see Table 1). Note
that, in this condition, a specific lexical prediction (e.g.,
CAKE) was fully supported by all available context up until
the critical noun was encountered; both the global context (the
highly constraining birthday cake scenario) and local context
(a semantic feature of cake) led the listener to anticipate the
word and its phonological form.
3
When a mismatching word
was encountered instead (VEGGIES), the globally predictable
conditions (sweet/healthy and tasty CAKE) and the globally
unpredictable/locally consistent (healthyand tasty VEGGIES)
conditions showed increases in amplitude at right frontal elec-
trode sites. These results suggest that listeners make specific
lexical predictions during discourse processing and that the
brain detects the mismatch between the predicted and actual
inputs within 200 ms after stimulus onset.
The N200 effect may reflect the mismatch between the
expected and received word forms. As we mentioned in the
3
To confirm that the globally and locally consistent condition (sweet and
tasty CAKE) generated the strongest prediction for a particular word
form, we conducted an additional offline rating task in which 40 partic-
ipants completed the experimental stories, truncated at the critical nouns
(i.e., after the feature words). The results showed that whereas over half of
the participants (55 %) specifically predicted critical nouns like CAKE
after the Bsweet and tasty^condition, 0 % predicted critical nouns like
VEGGIES in this condition. Therefore, Bsweet and tasty VEGGIES^was
the only condition in which a very strong prediction for a specific item
was disconfirmed (and was the condition driving the N200 effect). It
should be noted that although the cloze probability for the most predict-
able condition (sweet and tasty CAKE) was weaker in this norming test,
when the feature words preceded the cutoff point, than when the feature
words were not present (55 % vs. 78 %), 55 % still represented a specific
prediction for over half of the participants on a given item, and more
importantly, was significantly different from the next most predictable
condition (55 % vs. 33 %, p< .001). In this condition, specific predictions
for globally predictable nouns like CAKE were reduced after encounter-
ing features such as Bhealthy and tasty,^dropping the cloze probability
for CAKE in this condition down (to 33 %). Therefore, critical nouns like
VEGGIES in the latter condition were still unexpected (cloze probability
of 1 %), but did not represent a mismatch with a specific prediction to the
same extent as in the Bsweet and tasty^condition.
Tabl e 2 Event-related potential results for the feature words
N200 N400 PNP
df F p η
2
Fpη
2
Fpη
2
Midline
Feature Compatibility (1, 18) 3.56 –– 12.54 ** .28 <1 ––
Feature Compatibility× Electrode (3, 54) 1.49 –– 5.42 * .01 <1 ––
Medial
Feature Compatibility (1, 18) 2.22 –– 13.2 ** .21 6.37 * .20
Feature Compatibility× Hemisphere (1, 18) 1.8 –– 3.93 –– 1.44 ––
Feature Compatibility× Anteriority (2, 36) 1.46 –– <1 –– <1 ––
Feature Compatibility× Hemisphere× Anteriority (2, 36) 2.78 –– <1 –– <1 ––
Lateral
Feature Compatibility (1, 18) 1.71 –– 10.99 ** .28 5.27 * .12
Feature Compatibility× Hemisphere (1, 18) 2.3 –– 2.01 –– 3.19 ––
Feature Compatibility× Anteriority (3, 54) 1.24 –– <1 –– <1 ––
Feature Compatibility× Hemisphere× Anteriority (3, 54) <1 –– 1.33 –– 2.12 ––
***
p<.001,
**
p<.01,
*
p<.05,^p<.07
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci
introduction, N200 effects with similar timings and topo-
graphic distributions have been reported in previous studies
in which the incoming phonological input mismatched the
form of the most expected word (Connolly & Phillips, 1994;
van den Brink et al., 2001; see Diaz & Swaab, 2007,fora
similar effect for words presented in lists rather than
sentences). These N200 effects have several similarities with
ERP effects that have been observed to mismatches between
expected and reviewed stimuli in domains other than language
processing.
For example, early frontal negativities have been reported
in response to auditory Boddballs^in perceptual tasks
(Näätänen, 1995; Näätänen, Gaillard, & Mäntysalo, 1978)
and to a wide range of novelty/expectedness manipulations
in cognitive-control paradigms (see Folstein & Van Petten,
2008, for a recent review). Similarly, the Boddball N200^
(elicited by infrequent stimuli), feedback ERN (elicited by
similar manipulations involving favorable/unfavorable feed-
back), and response ERN (elicited by error and response con-
flict) all have similar frontal/frontal-central distributions
across the scalp and timings (Holroyd, 2004; Holroyd &
Coles, 2002; Yeung, Botvinick, & Cohen, 2004). As
Folstein and Van Petten pointed out, the anterior N200 that
is often observed in response to infrequent auditory stimuli
Tabl e 3 Event-related potential results for the critical nouns (omnibus analysis)
N200 N400 PNP
df F p η
2
Fpη
2
Fpη
2
Midline
Global Predictability (1, 18) 5.23 * .06 48.02 *** .37 3.73 ^ –
Local Consistency (1, 18) <1 –– 6.75 * .05 1.41 ––
Global Predictability× Local Consistency (1, 18) 2.85 –– 3.97 ^ –5.44 * .07
Global Predictability× Electrode (3, 54) 2.02 –– 2.1 –– <1 ––
Local Consistency× Electrode (3, 54) <1 –– <1 –– 1.22 ––
Global Predictability× Local Consistency× Electrode (3, 54) 3.43 ^ ^–<1 –– 2.18 ––
Medial
Global Predictability (1, 18) 2.69 –– 40.14 *** .40 4.19 ^ ^
Local Consistency (1, 18) <1 –– 7.07 * .06 <1 ––
Global Predictability× Local Consistency (1, 18) 5.28 * .06 5.18 * .03 8.99 ** .11
Global Predictability× Hemisphere (1, 18) <1 –– <1 –– <1 ––
Local Consistency× Hemisphere (1, 18) <1 –– 1.24 –– <1 ––
Global Predictability× Local Consistency× Hemisphere (1, 18) <1 –– <1 –– 1.8 ––
Global Predictability× Anteriority (2, 36) 1.66 –– 4.33 * .01 <1 ––
Local Consistency× Anteriority (2, 36) <1 –– 1.54 –– 1.34 ––
Global Predictability× Local Consistency× Anteriority (2, 36) 1.34 –– <1 –– <1 ––
Global Predictability× Hemisphere× Anteriority (2, 36) <1 –– <1 –– <1 ––
Local Consistency× Hemisphere× Anteriority (2, 36) <1 –– 1.27 –– 3.59 * .01
Global Predictability× Local Consistency× Hemisphere× Anteriority (2, 36) 1.06 –– <1 –– 1.35 ––
Lateral
Global Predictability (1, 18) 4.64 * .05 40.44 *** .35 3.29 ––
Local Consistency (1, 18) <1 –– 6.66 * .05 <1 ––
Global Predictability× Local Consistency (1, 18) 4.66 * .04 4.79 * .02 9.97 ** .08
Global Predictability× Hemisphere (1, 18) <1 –– <1 –– <1 ––
Local Consistency× Hemisphere (1, 18) 1.23 –– 3.07 –– 2.84 ––
Global Predictability× Local Consistency× Hemisphere (1, 18) <1 –– <1 –– 2.01 ––
Global Predictability× Anteriority (3, 54) 2.91 –– 6.97 * .01 <1 ––
Local Consistency× Anteriority (3, 54) <1 –– 1.84 –– 4.81 * .01
Global Predictability× Local Consistency× Anteriority (3, 54) 1.63 –– 1.82 –– <1 ––
Global Predictability× Hemisphere× Anteriority (3, 54) 3.33 * .01 3.18 * .00 2.61 ––
Local Consistency× Hemisphere× Anteriority (3, 54) 1.86 –– <1 –– <1 ––
Global Predictability× Local Consistency× Hemisphere× Anteriority (3, 54) 2.59 –– 12.49 ** 1.59 ––
***
p<.001,
**
p<.01,
*
p<.05,^p<.07
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci
may represent a mixture of several related components
(MMN, N2b, N2c). Indeed, within the cognitive-control,
anterior-negativity literature, there has been some debate as
to whether or not these represent distinct effects and/or pro-
cesses (Holroyd, 2004; Yeung et al., 2004). Across domains,
many of the early, anterior negative deflections that have been
observed in response to novel, unexpected, or error-related
stimuli have been interpreted as reflecting some type of mis-
match between expected and received inputs (Folstein & Van
Petten, 2008; Holroyd, 2004; Holroyd & Coles, 2002; Yeung
et al., 2004).
In the present study, we suggest that the increased early
frontal negativity seen in the globally predictable/locally in-
consistent condition (sweet and healthy VEGGIES) relative to
the other conditions reflects an early cost associated with de-
tecting a mismatch between the expected and received word
forms. This pattern of results demonstrates that the activation
of a specific lexical form when the context is maximally
constraining (both global and local cues point to the same
word) leads to the detection of a mismatch (representational
conflict) when a different word than anticipated is heard.
In summary, the results for the critical nouns in the N200
window show that listeners activate the specific phonological
form when they have a strong basis on which to expect spe-
cific lexical items (as is the case for the Bsweet and tasty
VEGGIES^condition). When the incoming phonological in-
put does not match the activated representation, an early
frontal-central negativity is generated. This effect is (1)
similar in timing and topography to other mismatch effects
that have been observed, in both the language literature and
the cognitive-control literature, and (2)topographically dis-
tinct from the N400 effects that follow.
Our N400 results showed graded effects of global predict-
ability and local consistency, with the smallest N400 to
Tabl e 4 Event-related potential results for the critical nouns: Simple effects of local consistency
N200 N400 PNP
df F p η
2
Fpη
2
Fpη
2
Globally Predictable: Locally Consistent vs. Locally Inconsistent
Midline
Local Consistency (1, 18) <1 –– <1 –– 8.15 * .22
Local Consistency× Electrode (3, 54) 1.21 –– <1 –– <1 ––
Medial
Local Consistency (1, 18) <1 –– <1 –– 9.56 ** .28
Local Consistency× Hemisphere (1, 18) <1 –– <1 –– <1 ––
Local Consistency× Anteriority (2, 36) <1 –– <1 –– 1.14 ––
Local Consistency× Hemisphere× Anteriority (2, 36) <1 –– 1.12 –– <1 ––
Lateral
Local Consistency (1, 18) 1.38 –– <1 –– 9.99 ** .2
Local Consistency× Hemisphere (1, 18) <1 –– 3.15 –– <1 ––
Local Consistency× Anteriority (3, 54) 1.2 –– <1 –– 1.69 ––
Local Consistency× Hemisphere× Anteriority (3, 54) <1 –– 3.44 * .01 1.31 ––
Globally Unpredictable: Locally Consistent vs. Locally Inconsistent
Midline
Local Consistency (1, 18) 2.13 –– 8.94 ** .26 <1 ––
Local Consistency× Electrode (3, 54) 2.52 –– <1 –– 3.06 ––
Medial
Local Consistency (1, 18) 4.29 ^ –11.3 2 ** .33 1.11 ––
Local Consistency× Hemisphere (1, 18) 2.23 –– 1.17 –– 1.38 ––
Local Consistency× Anteriority (2, 36) <1 –– 1.29 –– 1.15 ––
Local Consistency× Hemisphere× Anteriority (2, 36) 1.11 –– <1 –– 2.95 ^ –
Lateral
Local Consistency (1, 18) 3.33 –– 10.7 ** .25 1.08 ––
Local Consistency× Hemisphere (1, 18) 1.23 –– <1 –– 5.02 * .01
Local Consistency× Anteriority (3, 54) <1 –– 3.17 ^ –3.81 ^ –
Local Consistency× Hemisphere× Anteriority (3, 54) 4.73 ** .01 5.16 ** .01 <1 ––
***
p<.001,
**
p<.01,
*
p<.05,^p<.07
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci
globally predictable, locally consistent nouns (sweet and tasty
CAKE), followed by globally predictable, locally inconsistent
nouns (healthy and tasty CAKE), then by globally unpredict-
able, locally consistent nouns (healthy and tasty VEGGIES),
and finally by globally unpredictable, locally inconsistent
nouns (sweet and tasty VEGGIES).
The globally predictable, locally consistent (sweet and
tasty CAKE) condition displayed a floor effect in this time
window. This is the only condition in which a specific lexical
prediction was fully supported: The critical noun was highly
predictable at the global level, and was further supported by
the feature word preceding the noun. If listeners use context to
anticipate specific lexical items, they are best equipped to do
so in the maximally constraining condition, in which enough
context is present to narrow down expectations to a particular
form. We do not suggest that the prediction of lexical forms is
common in language processing. Rather, as several recent
accounts have suggested, it is likely that readers/listeners ac-
tivate the general semantic features (e.g., animacy) of upcom-
ing input unless the context is constraining enough to license a
more specific prediction (Kuperberg, 2013; Pickering &
Garrod, 2013; Szewczyk & Schriefers, 2013; Van Petten &
Luka, 2012). We suggest that the globally predictable/locally
consistent condition in the present experiment is just such a
case, leading to little if any access/retrieval processing when
the actual critical word is heard. This is reflected by the am-
plitude of the N400 being maximally attenuated relative to all
other conditions.
In contrast, the N400 to the globally predictable, locally
inconsistent (healthy and tasty CAKE) condition was slightly,
but significantly, larger, although still substantially attenuated
relative to the two globally unpredictable conditions (sweet/
healthy and tasty VEGGIES). This indicates that the presence
of the inconsistent feature words (Bhealthy^before CAKE)
Tabl e 5 Event-related potential results for the critical nouns: Simple effects of global predictability
N200 N400 PNP
df F p η
2
Fpη
2
Fpη
2
Locally Consistent: Globally Predictable vs. Globally Unpredictable
Midline
Global Predictability (1, 18) <1 –– 19.72 *** .34 <1 ––
Global Predictability× Electrode (3, 54) 3.8 * .07 1.12 ––<1 ––
Medial
Global Predictability (1, 18) <1 –– 17.54 *** .4 1.06 ––
Global Predictability× Hemisphere (1, 18) <1 –– <1 –– 1.23 ––
Global Predictability× Anteriority (2, 36) 2.54 –– 2.84 –– 1.08 ––
Global Predictability× Hemisphere× Anteriority (2, 36) 1.82 –– <1 ––<1 ––
Lateral
Global Predictability (1, 18) <1 –– 17.55 *** .32 1.33 ––
Global Predictability× Hemisphere (1, 18) <1 –– <1 ––<1 ––
Global Predictability× Anteriority (3, 54) 2.93 –– 1.66 ––<1 ––
Global Predictability× Hemisphere× Anteriority (3, 54) 1.88 –– 2.79 ^ –2.91 ^ –
Locally Inconsistent: Globally Predictable vs. Globally Unpredictable
Midline
Global Predictability (1, 18) 6.23 * .19 31.65 *** .56 7.36 * .23
Global Predictability× Electrode (3, 54) <1 –– 1.54 –– 2.55 ––
Medial
Global Predictability (1, 18) 6.48 * .23 33.74 *** .61 4.76 * .16
Global Predictability× Hemisphere (1, 18) <1 –– <1 ––<1 ––
Global Predictability× Anteriority (2, 36) <1 –– 3.27 –– 1.44 ––
Global Predictability× Hemisphere× Anteriority (2, 36) <1 –– <1 –– 1.36 ––
Lateral
Global Predictability (1, 18) 9.79 ** .24 34.83 *** .54 11.54 ** .23
Global Predictability× Hemisphere (1, 18) <1 –– <1 –– 1.01 ––
Global Predictability× Anteriority (3, 54) 1.91 –– 9.16 ** .02 1.74 ––
Global Predictability× Hemisphere× Anteriority (3, 54) 3.87 * .01 13.62 *** .01 1.11 ––
***
p<.001,
**
p<.01,
*
p<.05,^p<.07
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci
had a significant influence on processing, such that the critical
nouns (CAKE) that followed did not enjoy the same level of
facilitation as the globally predictable words that had followed
consistent feature words. Likewise, the presence of a locally
consistent feature significantly reduced the N400 to globally
unpredictable words (healthy and tasty VEGGIES) relative to
when unpredictable words were preceded by locally inconsis-
tent feature words (sweet and tasty VEGGIES). Thus, global
and local context both contributed to the degree of match/
mismatch between the expected and received semantic con-
tent (features) at the critical nouns, as reflected by the graded
pattern of N400 results. This is consistent with previous work
in which global and local context were manipulated within the
same paradigm (Boudewyn et al., 2012; Boudewyn et al.,
2013; Camblin et al., 2007). In those studies, listeners were
rapidly sensitive to both the discourse message and the pres-
ence of local primes that preceded the target words. The pres-
ent results expand on these findings to show that, even in
constraining discourse contexts in which a specific word is
highly predictable (CAKE), listeners dynamically adjust their
expectations after encountering locally inconsistent input
(healthy). Overall, the results in the N400 window at the crit-
ical nouns show (1)evidence for the activation of globally
predictable words and (2)evidence that both global and local
context influence processing.
Conflict and adaptation
Global predictability and local consistency interacted signifi-
cantly in the PNP time window. Local consistency affected the
processing of globally predictable nouns, such that globally
predictable, locally inconsistent nouns (healthy and tasty
CAKE) showed a larger PNP than did locally consistent nouns
(sweet and tasty CAKE). Likewise, local consistency affected
the processing of globally unpredictable nouns: Globally un-
predictable, locally consistent nouns (healthy and tasty VEGG
IES) showed a larger PNP than did locally inconsistent nouns
(sweet and tasty VEGGIES). No significant PNP effect of
global predictability emerged for locally consistent nouns
(sweet and tasty CAKE vs. healthy and tasty VEGGIES); this
was the only comparison in which no PNP effect was found.
However, global predictability affected the processing of lo-
cally inconsistent nouns, such that globally predictable, local-
ly inconsistent nouns (healthy and tasty CAKE) showed a
larger PNP than did globally unpredictable, locally inconsis-
tent nouns (sweet and tasty VEGGIES).
We refer to the late positive effects in this study as post-
N400 positivities (PNPs), because this is a theory-neutral term
that does not exclude the possibility that multiple ERP effects
may occur in this time window (see Van Petten & Luka,
2012). The PNP effects were quite late (900–1,200 ms post-
word-onset) in comparison to the typical latency of either the
P600 effect or the PNP that has recently been linked to the
processing of unpredictable input, both of which are common-
ly observed in the range of 500–900 ms post-word-onset
4
(see
Van Petten & Luka, 2012, for a recent review). However, as
will be discussed in more detail below, the present PNP effects
share a number of similarities with other late positive effects
that have been observed in language-processing paradigms,
particularly the P600 effect and the frontal PNP that has been
linked to the processing of unpredictable input. In addition to
the positive polarity and the relative timing (post-N400), the
present PNP effects appear to be driven by increased demands
on revision, updating, or conflict-monitoring/resolution pro-
cesses, all of which have been previously related to P600/PNP
effects (e.g., Brothers et al., 2015; Federmeier et al., 2007;
Friederici, 2002; Kolk & Chwilla, 2007; Kuperberg, 2007;
O’Rourke & Van Petten, 2011; Thornhill & Van Petten, 2012).
The P600 is increased in response to syntactic errors (e.g.,
Osterhout & Mobley, 1995), syntactic complexity (e.g., Kaan,
Harris, Gibson, & Holcomb,2000), and conflict at the syntax–
semantics interface (e.g., Kuperberg, Sitnikova, Caplan, &
Holcomb, 2003). It is typically maximal over central-posteri-
or/parietal electrode sites. There is some debate over the pre-
cise functional significance of the P600. One view is that it
reflects revision, or attempts at revision, of previously adopted
syntactic structures (Friederici, 2002; Hahne & Friederici,
1999). Another view attributes a domain-general error-moni-
toring and reprocessing function to the P600 (Kolk & Chwilla,
2007; van Herten, Chwilla, & Kolk, 2006). Following the
finding of Bsemantic^P600 effects in response to words that
appeared in simple, syntactically well-formed sentences, but
that represented thematic role violations (e.g., BAt breakfast
the eggs would eat^), it has been suggested that the P600
may reflect continued combinatorial processing following
a conflict between semantic and syntactic processing
streams (Kuperberg, 2007; Kuperberg et al., 2003). The
latter account has since been refined to posit that the
P600 represents the processing costs of disconfirmed pre-
dictions about events or event structures (Kuperberg,
2013). Specifically, Kuperberg (2013) suggested that a
processing cost is incurred when a specific Bhigh-
certainty^prediction is disconfirmed (whether that predic-
tion concerns an event, structure, or thematic role assign-
ment), and that this cost is reflected in the P600.
In contrast, PNPs with a more frontal distribution across the
scalp have been observed in response to plausible words that
are unpredictable in context (see Thornhill & Van Petten,
2012; Van Petten & Luka, 2012, for overviews). Unlike the
central-posterior/parietal P600 effect, which may or may not
occur after an N400 effect, the frontal PNPs follow N400
effects. This underscores the PNP’s link to the processing of
4
However, late PNP effects have been observed extending out to our
rather late time range in several studies (Otten & Van Berkum, 2008;
Thornhill & Van Petten, 2012).
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci
input that is semantically unpredictable. Although recent ret-
rospective reviews of the N400 literature have revealed
that these frontal PNPs have appeared in a number of stud-
ies, they have not received much attention until recently
(DeLong, Urbach, Groppe, & Kutas, 2011; Federmeier
et al., 2007;butseeKutas,1993; Thornhill & Van Petten,
2012; Van Petten & Luka, 2012). As such, the functional
significance of the frontal PNP is open to interpretation.
One possibility is that it reflects processing costs associat-
ed with encountering input that was not predicted but is
plausible in context (Van Petten & Luka, 2012). As to the
specific nature of the processing costs, possibilities include
(1)inhibition of the predicted word (since a different word
was encountered in its place; Kutas, 1993)and(2)
additional processing needed to discard the previous pre-
dictions (which were disconfirmed by plausible, but unpre-
dictable, input) and to update representations of the context
accordingly (Kuperberg, 2013).
In the present study, two of the effects in the PNP window
had a parietal distribution that more closely resembled the
P600 than the frontal PNP: the effect of local consistency for
globally predictable words (sweet and tasty CAKE vs. healthy
and tasty CAKE) and the effect of global predictability for
locally inconsistent words (sweet and tasty VEGGIES vs.
healthy and tasty CAKE). The third PNP effect was smaller
and had a more frontal distribution that more closely resem-
bled the frontal PNP than the P600: the effect of local consis-
tency for globally unpredictable words (sweet and tasty
VEGGIES vs. healthy and tasty VEGGIES). Despite small
distributional differences, a parsimonious explanation of these
effects is that they reflect context-updating processes, trig-
gered by conflict between expectations that were based on
global context and those based on the most recent, local con-
text. When the global and local contexts were consistent, no
late PNP was observed. Importantly, this was true for the
doubly supported critical nouns (sweet and tasty CAKE) and
for the nouns that were doubly unsupported (sweet and tasty
VEGGIES). As can be seen in Fig. 2, the waveforms for these
two conditions overlap in the PNP time window, despite hav-
ing diverged in the preceding N200 and N400 time windows
and despite being at the opposite extremes of the predictability
manipulation. This may be because neither of these conditions
triggered additional context-updating processes, which as
Kuperberg (2013) suggested may involve discarding previous
predictions in the face of alternative input that is plausible
enough to integrate. In the case of the doubly supported con-
dition, there was no context-updating cost, because the input
was consistent with both scenario-based and lexically based
expectations. In the case of the doubly unsupported condition,
there was no context to support abandoning the developing
scenario; the given phrase was not a plausible continuation to
the story. Thus, it did not provide enough information to up-
date the developing representation. In other words, the phrase
may have been interpreted as an anomaly in a birthday cake
scenario and did not trigger an updating process in which the
scenario was reinterpreted.
The support for context/expectation updating was pres-
ent in the Bsingle-conflict^conditions. In these conditions
(globally predictable/locally inconsistent [healthy and tasty
CAKE] and globally unpredictable/locally consistent
[healthy and tasty VEGGIES]), a local cue was present
that, when combined with the noun, warranted updating
the discourse representation. In the case of the globally
supported, locally inconsistent condition (healthy and tasty
CAKE), the presence of the inconsistent feature continua-
tion in an otherwise supportive global context triggered
efforts to integrate the incompatible feature into the repre-
sentation of the discourse (to accommodate what was an
atypical exemplar of the noun). The PNP in this condition
showed up in two of the comparisons: It was significantly
larger than in both the globally supported/locally consis-
tent condition (sweet and tasty CAKE) and the globally
unsupported/locally inconsistent condition (sweet and
tasty VEGGIES). In fact, as can be seen in Fig. 2,the
PNP in this condition was the largest and most broadly
distributed PNP that was observed in the study.
In the globally unsupported, locally consistent condition
(healthy and tasty VEGGIES), the presence of the consis-
tent feature may have provided enough support that an
attempt at updating was made, even though the noun that
followed a few words later did not fit well with the global
context. This possibility is consistent with the idea that
plausible, but unpredictable, input may trigger listeners/
readers to abandon their expectations and update their rep-
resentations accordingly. In this condition, the local cue
appears to have lent some plausibility to the noun, which
would otherwise be a complete mismatch to the preceding
context. Responses in this condition significantly diverged
from the doubly unsupported condition (sweet and tasty
VEGGIES) in the PNP window, consistent with the idea
that the PNP is specific to circumstances in which some
contextual support is available to trigger updating process-
es. However, this condition only marginally diverged from
the doubly supported condition (sweet and tasty CAKE).
Although some attempts at updating and integration might
have been possible, the globally unsupported, locally sup-
ported (healthy and tasty VEGGIES) noun still did not fit
the overall scenario (birthday party) very well. It may have
been more feasible to reconcile the most predictable noun
(CAKE) with an atypical semantic feature (healthy) than to
accommodate a noun that was a poor fit to the global con-
text (VEGGIES), even with local support (healthy). If so,
this would explain the more robust PNP that was observed
in the former than in the latter condition, and why the latter
conditionshowedonlyamarginalPNPrelativetothefully
supported condition.
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci
Conclusions
Our results support four main conclusions. First, the N400
effect that was observed at the feature words is consistent
with recent suggestions that access/retrieval is facilitated
when some or all relevant semantic features have been
activated by context (Kuperberg, 2013). Second, the grad-
ed N400 effect to critical nouns shows that expectations
for upcoming words can be modulated by constraints in
the global discourse and by the meanings of words in the
local context, even when the discourse context is highly
predictive of specific lexical items. Furthermore, the re-
sults at the critical nouns show that listeners dynamically
adjust their expectations as incoming words are heard,
since the feature words influenced processing of the crit-
ical nouns that appeared downstream, strengthening the
expectation for the globally predictable nouns when
they were consistent, and weakening it when they were
inconsistent. Third, when the context is sufficiently
constraining, as when both scenario-based expectations
and the local context converge, a specific lexical item
(including semantic features and word form) is activated.
Evidence for this comes from the N200 effect seen at the
nouns, in which a mismatch between the predicted and
perceived lexical forms resulted in an early, frontal nega-
tive deflection (distinct from the N400). Fourth, listeners
dynamically adjust their expectations when input begins
to diverge from the representation of the context that has
been developing up to that point. Critically, the inconsis-
tent input that triggers the adjustment and updating pro-
cesses must have some level of support from prior con-
text: Input that is completely inconsistent/implausible
(i.e., at both the global and local levels) does not appear
to elicit revision/updating processes. Evidence for this
comes from the PNP effects that were observed at the
critical nouns, in which a late positive shift was elicited
only in those conditions in which the feature words were
inconsistent with the most predictable completion. We
suggest that the conflict triggered updating processes at
the subsequently encountered noun. This suggestion is
consistent with models of discourse processing in which
coherence breaks are posited to trigger Bshifting^process-
es (Gernsbacher, 1996,1997). Inconsistencies or changes
in coherence can serve as useful information to the
comprehender, but are associated with more effortful pro-
cessing. The adjustment of expectations is critical during
comprehension, because incoming words do not always
map directly to what is expected on the basis of prior
context. Discourse representations are not static, but are
continually updated as new information is encountered,
and therefore the processing of incoming words is dynam-
ically facilitated by the most current contextual represen-
tation that is available.
References
Boudewyn, M. A., Gordon, P. C., Long, D., Polse, L., & Swaab, T. Y.
(2012). Does discourse congruence influence spoken language com-
prehension before lexical association? Evidence from event-related
potentials. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27, 698–733. doi:10.
1080/01690965.2011.577980
Boudewyn, M. A., Long, D. L., & Swaab, T. Y. (2013). Effects of work-
ing memory span on processing of lexical associations and congru-
ence in spoken discourse. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 60. doi:10.
3389/fpsyg.2013.00060
Brothers, T., Swaab, T. Y., & Traxler, M. J. (2015). Effects of prediction
and contextual support on lexical processing: Prediction takes pre-
cedence. Cognition, 136, 135–149.
Camblin, C. C., Gordon, P. C., & Swaab, T. Y. (2007). The interplay of
discourse congruence and lexical association during sentence pro-
cessing: Evidence from ERPs and eye tracking. JournalofMemory
and Language, 56, 103–128. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2006.07.005
Connolly, J. F., & Phillips, N. A. (1994). Event-related potential compo-
nents reflect phonological and semantic processing of the terminal
word of spoken sentences. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 6,
256–266.
DeLong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., Groppe, D. M., & Kutas, M. (2011).
Overlapping dual ERP responses to low cloze probability sentence
continuations. Psychophysiology, 48, 1203–1207.
DeLong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2005). Probabilistic word
pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electri-
cal brain activity. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 1117–1121. doi:10.1038/
nn1504
Diaz, M. T., & Swaab, T. Y. (2007). Electrophysiological differentiation
of phonological and semantic integration in word and sentence con-
texts. Brain Research, 1146, 85–100. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2006.
07.034
Federmeier, K. D. (2007). Thinking ahead: the role and roots of predic-
tion in language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 44, 491–505.
doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00531.x
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, 469–495. doi:10.1006/jmla.1999.2660
Federmeier, K. D., Kutas, M., & Schul, R. (2010). Age-related and indi-
vidual differences in the use of prediction during language compre-
hension. Brain and Language, 115, 149–161. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.
2010.07.006
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
Folstein,J. R., & Van Petten, C. (2008). Influence of cognitive control and
mismatch on the N2 component of the ERP: A review.
Psychophysiology, 45, 152–170.
Forster, K. I. (1981). Priming and the effects of sentence and lexical
contexts on naming time: Evidence for autonomous lexical process-
ing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33A, 465–495.
doi:10.1080/14640748108400804
Friederici, A. D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence
processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 78–84.
Gernsbacher, M. A.(1996). Thestructure-buildingframework:What it is,
what it might also be, and why. In B. K. Britton & A. C. Graesser
(Eds.), Models of understanding text (pp. 289–311). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1997). Two decades of structure building. Discourse
Processes, 23, 265–304.
Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (1999). Electrophysiological evidence for
two steps in syntactic analysis: Early automatic and late controlled
processes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 194–205.
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci
Holroyd, C. B. (2004). A note on the oddball N200 and the feedback
ERN. Neurophysiology, 78, 447–455.
Holroyd, C. B., & Coles, M. G. H. (2002). The neural basis of human
error processing: Reinforcement learning, dopamine, and the error-
related negativity. Psychological Review, 109, 679–709. doi:10.
1037/0033-295X.109.4.679
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, gram-
mar, evolution. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E., & Holcomb, P. (2000). The P600 as an
index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive
Processes, 15, 159–201.
Kolk, H., & Chwilla, D. (2007). Late positivities in unusual situations.
Brain and Language, 100, 257–261. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2006.07.
006
Kuperberg, G. R. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehen-
sion: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research, 1146, 23–49. doi:10.
1016/j.brainres.2006.12.063
Kuperberg, G. R. (2013). The proactive comprehender: What event-
related potentials tell us about the dynamics of reading comprehen-
sion. In B. Miller, L. Cutting, & P. McCardle (Eds.), Unraveling the
behavioral, neurobiological, and genetic components of reading
comprehension (pp. 176–192). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
Kuperberg, G. R., Sitnikova, T., Caplan, D., & Holcomb, P. J. (2003).
Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relation-
ships within simple sentences. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 117–
129. doi:10.1016/s0926-6410(03)00086-7
Kutas, M. (1993). In the company of other words: Electrophysiological
evidence for single-word and sentence context effects. Language
and Cognitive Processes, 8, 533–572.
Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals se-
mantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 4, 463–470.
Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: find-
ing meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain po-
tential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 621–647. doi:10.
1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123
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, 484–502. doi:10.1162/
jocn_a_00328
Lau, E. F., Stroud, C., Plesch, S., & Phillips, C. (2006). The role of
structural prediction in rapid syntactic analysis. Brain and
Language, 98, 74–88. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2006.02.003
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
McCarthy, G., & Wood, C. C. (1985). Scalp distributions of event-related
potentials: An ambiguity associated with analysis of variance
models. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology,
62, 203–208.
McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Seidenberg, M. S., & McNorgan, C. (2005).
Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and
nonliving things. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 547–559. doi:
10.3758/BF03192726
Metusalem, R., Kutas, M., Urbach, T. P., Hare, M., McRae, K., & Elman,
J. L. (2012). Generalized event knowledge activation during online
sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 66,
545–567.
Näätänen, R. (1995). The mismatch negativity: A powerful tool for cog-
nitive neuroscience. Ear and Hearing, 16, 6–18.
Näätänen, R., Gaillard, A. W., & Mäntysalo, S. (1978). Early selective-
attention effect on evoked potential reinterpreted. Acta
Psychologica, 42, 313–329.
Nieuwland,M. S., & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2005). Testing the limits of the
semantic illusion phenomenon: ERPs reveal temporary semantic
change deafness in discourse comprehension. Cognitive Brain
Research, 24, 691–701. doi:10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.04.003
O’Rourke, P. L., & Van Petten, C. (2011). Morphological agreement at a
distance: Dissociation between early and late components of the
event-related brain potential. Brain Research, 1392, 62–79.
Osterhout, L., & Mobley, L. A. (1995). Event-related brain potentials
elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and Language, 34,
739–773.
Otten, M., & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2007). What makes a discourse
constraining? Comparing the effects of discourse message and sce-
nario fit on the discourse-dependent N400 effect. Brain Research,
115 3 , 166–177. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2007.03.058
Otten, M., & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2008). Discourse-based word antic-
ipation during language processing: prediction or priming?
Discourse Processes, 45, 464–496. doi:10.1080/
01638530802356463
Paczynski, M., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2012). Multiple influences of seman-
tic memory on sentence processing: Distinct effects of semantic
relatedness on violations of real-world event/state knowledge and
animacy selection restrictions. Journal of Memory and Language,
67, 426–448. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.07.003
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language
production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36,
329–347. doi:10.1017/S0140525X12001495
Ruchkin, D. S., Johnson, R., & Friedman, D. (1999). Scaling is necessary
when making comparisons between shapes of event-related poten-
tial topographies: A reply to Haig et al. Psychophysiology, 36, 832–
834.
Swaab, T. Y., Ledoux, K., Camblin, C. C., & Boudewyn, M. A. (2012).
Language-related ERP components. In S. J. Luck & E. S.
Kappenman (Eds.), Oxford handbook of event-related potential
components (pp. 397–440). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Szewczyk, J. M., & Schriefers, H. (2013). Prediction in language com-
prehension beyond specific words: An ERP study on sentence com-
prehension in Polish. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 297–
314. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.12.002
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, 382–392.
Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2002). The intractability of scaling scalp
distributions to infer neuroelectric sources. Psychophysiology, 39,
791–808.
van Berkum, J. J. A., 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, 443–467. doi:
10.1037/0278-7393.31.3.443
van Berkum, J. J. A., Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. M. (1999). Semantic
integration in sentences and discourse: Evidence from the N400.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 657–671. doi:10.1162/
089892999563724
van Berkum, J. J. A., Zwitserlood, P., Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. M.
(2003). When and how do listeners relate a sentence to the wider
discourse? Evidence from the N400 effect. Cognitive Brain
Research, 17, 701–718. doi:10.1016/s0926-6410(03)00196-4
vandenBrink,D.,Brown,C.M.,&Hagoort,P.(2001).
Electrophysiological evidence for early contextual influences during
spoken-word recognition: N200 versus N400 effects. Journal of
Cognitive Neuroscience, 13, 967–985.
van Herten, M., Chwilla, D. J., & Kolk, H. H. J. (2006). When heuristics
clash with parsing routines: ERP evidence for conflict monitoring in
sentence perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1181–
1197. doi:10.1162/jocn.2006.18.7.1181
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci
Van Petten,C. (1993). A comparison of lexical and sentence-level context
effects in event-related potentials. Language and Cognitive
Processes, 8, 485–531.
Van Petten, C., & Luka, B. J. (2012). Prediction during language com-
prehension: Benefits, costs, and ERP components. International
Journal of Psychophysiology, 83, 176–190. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.
2011.09.015
Van Petten, C., Weckerly, J., McIsaac, H. K., & Kutas, M. (1997).
Working memory capacity dissociates lexical and sentential context
effects. Psychological Science, 8, 238–242.
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 agree-
ment in Spanish sentence reading. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 16, 1272–1288. doi:10.1162/
0898929041920487
Yeung, N., Botvinick, M. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). The neural basis of
error detection: Conflict monitoring and the error-related negativity.
Psychological Review, 111, 931–959. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.111.
4.931
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci
