Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity

By Katherine A. DeLong, Thomas P. Urbach, Marta Kutas. Nature Neuroscience, 2005

1,155 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Developmental and Educational Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d28eab10c3c84965a9fb50f3eb0e5e680929fbcc

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Investigating the time-course of phonological prediction in native and non-native speakers of English: A visual world eye-tracking study (2018, background): “unexpected articles) was not found in DeLong et al. (2005), and Martin et al. (2013) did not report the article correlation that DeLong et al.”
Spoken language-mediated anticipatory eye- movements are modulated by reading ability - Evidence from Indian low and high literates (2012, background): “Such linguistic prediction can be based on semantic (Federmeier & Kutas, 1999), syntactic (Van Berkum et al., 2005), and phonological (DeLong et al., 2005) information.”
Prediction, Cognition and the Brain (2009, background): “…understanding (Jeannerod, 2001; Kilner et al., 2007), visual processing and attention (Mehta and Schaal, 2002; Enns and Lleras, 2008), language (DeLong et al., 2005), music (Keller and Koch, 2008), emotional processing (Ueda et al., 2003; Nitschke et al., 2006; Herwig et al., 2007; Gilbert and…”
Semantics and the electrophysiology of meaning: Tense, aspect, event structure (2004, background): “Experimental evidence points in the direction of two competing accounts: the first, which postulates that the N400 is directly correlated with the difficulty in integrating the meaning of the upcoming word in the sentence model [208, 209, 79, 155, 52, 81, 148, 127]; the second, which proposes the N4”
The neurobiology of language beyond single words. (2014, background): “Recent ERP studies have provided evidence that context can indeed result in predictions about the syntactic features (i.e., grammatical gender; Van Berkum et al. 2005) and word form (DeLong et al. 2005) of the next word.”
Consequences of the Now-or-Never bottleneck for signed versus spoken languages (2015, background): “…potential experiments indicate that rather specific predictions are made for upcoming input, including its lexical category (Hinojosa et al. 2005), grammatical gender (Van Berkum et al. 2005; Wicha et al. 2004), and even its onset phoneme (DeLong et al. 2005) and visual form (Dikker et al. 2010).”
The real-time mediation of visual attention by language and world knowledge: Linking anticipatory (and other) eye movements to linguistic processing (2007, background): “For example, DeLong, Urbach, and Kutas (2005) presented participants with written sentences such as ‘the day was breezy so the boy went outside to fly a kite/an airplane’.”
Predicting form and meaning: Evidence from brain potentials (2016, background): “Evidence for form-related N400 reduction comes from DeLong et al. (2005), who took advantage of the English phonotactic rule that the article a precedes consonantinitial words and the article an precedes vowel-initial 2 Within-category words were never lexical associates of the target words, but…”
Incrementality and Prediction in Human Sentence Processing (2009, background): “…example, the glass during “the glass”) do not reflect only the upcoming, or concurrent, language per se (cf. the studies by Van Berkum et al., 2005; DeLong et al., 2005; and McDonald & Shillcock, 2003a, 2003b), they reflect also the unfolding conceptual correlates of the event which the…”
On the Meaning of Words and Dinosaur Bones: Lexical Knowledge Without a Lexicon (2009, neutral): “…2005; DeLong, Urbach, & Kutas, 2005; Kamide, Altmann, & Haywood, 2003a; Pickering & Garrod, 2007) as well as in other realms of behavior (Kahneman & Tversky, 1973; Kveraga, Ghuman, & Bar, 2007; Spirtes, Glymour, & Scheines, 2000) and in the brain (Dayan, 2002; Kochukhova & Gredeback, 2007).”
The effect of word predictability on reading time is logarithmic (2013, neutral): “…hand, the anticipatory processing account holds that predictability effects do arise from some kind of processing which is predictive in the sense that it is dependent on the identity of the upcoming word, but occurs before this word identity is known (DeLong et al., 2005; Van Berkum et al., 2005).”