The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Cognitive Dynamics of Negated Sentence Verification
Open accessAbstract
We explored the influence of negation on cognitive dynamics, measured using mouse‐movement trajectories, to test the classic notion that negation acts as an operator on linguistic processing. In three experiments, participants verified the truth or falsity of simple statements, and we tracked the computer‐mouse trajectories of their responses. Sentences expressing these facts sometimes contained a negation. Such negated statements could be true (e.g., “elephants are not small”) or false (e.g., “elephants are not large”). In the first experiment, as predicted by the classic notion of negation, we found that negation caused more discreteness in the mouse trajectory of a response. The second experiment induced a simple context for these statements, yet negation still increased discreteness in trajectories. A third experiment enhanced the pragmatic context of sentences, and the discreteness was substantially diminished, with one primary measure no longer significantly showing increased discreteness at all. Traditional linguistic theories predict rapid shifts in cognitive dynamics occur due to the nature of negation: It is an operator that reverses the truth or falsity of an interpretation. We argue that these results support both propositional and contextual accounts of negation present in the literature, suggesting that contextual factors are crucial for determining the kind of cognitive dynamics displayed. We conclude by drawing broader lessons about theories of cognition from the case of negation.
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
Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 · Cited by 8,540
Situation models in language comprehension and memory
Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162 · Cited by 2,877
Hartigan, J. A., & Hartigan, P. M. (1985) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1176346577 · Cited by 1,973
Cheap and fast---but is it good?: evaluating non-expert annotations for natural language tasks
Snow, R., O'Connor, B., Jurafsky, D., & Ng, A. Y. (2008) · Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing - EMNLP '08 · doi:10.3115/1613715.1613751 · Cited by 1,887
Psychology of Reasoning: Structure and Content
Wason, P. C., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1972) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,421
Cisek, P., & Kalaska, J. F. (2005) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2005.01.027 · Cited by 1,054
Self-organization of cognitive performance.
Van Orden, G. C., Holden, J. G., & Turvey, M. T. (2003) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.132.3.331 · Cited by 718
Hidden cognitive states revealed in choice reaching tasks
Song, J.-H., & Nakayama, K. (2009) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.04.009 · Cited by 695
Freeman, J. B., & Ambady, N. (2010) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/brm.42.1.226 · Cited by 680
Changes of mind in decision-making
Resulaj, A., Kiani, R., Wolpert, D. M., & Shadlen, M. N. (2009) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature08275 · Cited by 678
Cited by
van Harreveld, F., Nohlen, H. U., & Schneider, I. K. (2015) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/bs.aesp.2015.01.002 · Cited by 183
Schneider, C., Schonard, C., Franke, M., Jäger, G., & Janczyk, M. (2019) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104024 · Cited by 15
Metadata
- Authors
- Dale, R., & Duran, N. D.
- Venue
- Cognitive Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-01-05
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 983-996
- ISSN
- 0364-0213 (ISSN-L)
- 1551-6709
- OpenAlex
- W2054493242
- Cited by
- 262
- References
- 42
- FWCI
- 69.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: The Cognitive Dynamics of Negated Sentence Verification. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01164.x
- The paper
- Dale, R., & Duran, N. D. (2011). The Cognitive Dynamics of Negated Sentence Verification. Cognitive Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01164.x
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.