Prior context and individual alpha frequency (IAF) influence predictive processing during language comprehension
Sophie JanoiD, Zachariah R. CrossiD, Alex ChatburniD, Matthias SchlesewskyiD, Ina Bornkessel‐SchlesewskyiD
Abstract
The extent to which the brain predicts upcoming information during language processing remains controversial. To shed light on this debate, the present study reanalysed Nieuwland and colleagues (2018) replication of DeLong et al. (2005). Participants (N = 356) viewed sentences containing articles and nouns of varying predictability, while their electroencephalogram was recorded. We measured event-related potentials (ERPs) preceding the critical words (namely the semantic prediction potential; SPP), in conjunction with post-word N400 patterns and individual neural metrics. ERP activity was compared with two measures of word predictability: cloze probability and lexical surprisal. In contrast to prior literature, SPP amplitudes did not increase as cloze probability increased, suggesting that the component may not reflect prediction during natural language processing. Initial N400 results at the article provided evidence against phonological prediction in language, in line with Nieuwland and colleagues findings. Strikingly however, when the surprisal of the prior words in the sentence was included in the analysis, increases in article surprisal were associated with increased N400 amplitudes, consistent with prediction accounts. This relationship between surprisal and N400 amplitude was not observed when the surprisal of the two prior words was low, suggesting that expectation violations at the article may be overlooked under highly predictable conditions. Individual alpha frequency (IAF) also modulated the relationship between article surprisal and the N400, emphasising the importance of individual neural factors for prediction. The present study extends upon existing neurocognitive models of language and prediction more generally, by illuminating the flexible and subject-specific nature of predictive processing.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 5
- FWCI
- 0.97
- Field percentile
- top 29%
- Organism
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Prediction (Or Not) During Language Processing. A Commentary On Nieuwland et al. (2017) And Delong et al. (2005)
S. Yan, G. R. Kuperberg, T. F. Jaeger·bioRxiv·May 30, 2017
- Limits on prediction in language comprehension: A multi-lab failure to replicate evidence for probabilistic pre-activation of phonology
Mante S. Nieuwland, Stephen Politzer‐Ahles, … Falk Huettig·eLifePeer-reviewed·Apr 3, 2018
- A Predictive Coding Model of the N400
Samer Nour Eddine, Trevor A. Brothers, … Gina R. Kuperberg·CognitionPeer-reviewed·May 1, 2024
- Interindividual differences in predicting words versus sentence meaning:Explaining N400 amplitudes using large-scale neural network models
Milena Rabovsky, Alessandro Lopopolo, Daniel J. Schad·bioRxiv·Jun 3, 2025
- Dissociable effects of prediction and integration during language comprehension: Evidence from a large-scale study using brain potentials
Mante S. Nieuwland, Dale J. Barr, … Sarah Von Grebmer Zu Wolfsthurn·Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesPeer-reviewed·Dec 16, 2019
- Tracking lexical and semantic prediction error underlying the N400 using artificial neural network models of sentence processing
Alessandro Lopopolo, Milena Rabovsky·Neurobiology of LanguagePeer-reviewed·Jan 1, 2024