The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effects of prediction and contextual support on lexical processing: Prediction takes precedence
Open accessAbstract
Readers may use contextual information to anticipate and pre-activate specific lexical items during reading. However, prior studies have not clearly dissociated the effects of accurate lexical prediction from other forms of contextual facilitation such as plausibility or semantic priming. In this study, we measured electrophysiological responses to predicted and unpredicted target words in passages providing varying levels of contextual support. This method was used to isolate the neural effects of prediction from other potential contextual influences on lexical processing. While both prediction and discourse context influenced ERP amplitudes within the time range of the N400, the effects of prediction occurred much more rapidly, preceding contextual facilitation by approximately 100ms. In addition, a frontal, post-N400 positivity (PNP) was modulated by both prediction accuracy and the overall plausibility of the preceding passage. These results suggest a unique temporal primacy for prediction in facilitating lexical access. They also suggest that the frontal PNP may index the costs of revising discourse representations following an incorrect lexical prediction.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Holroyd, C. B., & Coles, M. G. H. (2002) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.109.4.679 · Cited by 4,027
Rational integration of noisy evidence and prior semantic expectations in sentence interpretation
Gibson, E., Bergen, L., & Piantadosi, S. T. (2013) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1216438110 · Cited by 407
Cited by
What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension?
Kuperberg, G. R., & Jaeger, T. F. (2016) · Language, Cognition and Neuroscience · doi:10.1080/23273798.2015.1102299 · Cited by 1,087
Predicting while comprehending language: A theory and review.
Pickering, M. J., & Gambi, C. (2018) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000158 · Cited by 518
Cognitive control ability mediates prediction costs in monolinguals and bilinguals
Zirnstein, M., van Hell, J. G., & Kroll, J. F. (2018) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2018.03.001 · Cited by 84
Dividing attention influences contextual facilitation and revision during language comprehension
Hubbard, R. J., & Federmeier, K. D. (2021) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2021.147466 · Cited by 35
Metadata
- Authors
- Brothers, T., Swaab, T. Y., & Traxler, M. J.
- Venue
- Cognition
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-03
- Volume
- 136
- Pages
- 135-149
- ISSN
- 0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2087273518
- Cited by
- 167
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 22.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effects of prediction and contextual support on lexical processing: Prediction takes precedence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.10.017
- The paper
- Brothers, T., Swaab, T. Y., & Traxler, M. J. (2015). Effects of prediction and contextual support on lexical processing: Prediction takes precedence. Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.10.017
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.