Cited by 47Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismLanguage Development and DisordersSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation

Structural priming during comprehension: A pattern from many pieces

Open access
Tooley, Kristen M.·2023·Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Abstract

Syntactic/structural priming has been shown to take place during comprehension. However, early comprehension findings revealed discrepancies with those in production, such as little to no abstract priming, yet readily observable lexically-mediated priming. These observations spurred important questions about whether structural processing is more lexically dependent during comprehension, whether abstract priming occurs at all during comprehension, and whether the mechanisms of structural facilitation are shared across these two modalities. The past decade has fortunately yielded many influential structural priming studies in comprehension, including those that seek to bridge the gap between structural processing across production and comprehension. This review serves to summarize recent findings that provide compelling evidence that abstract structural priming and learning do take place in comprehension, and that these effects show parity with those found in production. Competing mechanistic explanations of structural priming are also reviewed and considered in light of findings in both modalities. Lastly, a summary is provided that outlines future lines of inquiry needed to establish a better understanding of structural representation, priming, and learning in comprehension, and more generally.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/s13423-022-02209-7

Cites

105 of 105 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tooley, K. M.
Affiliations
Texas State University (US)
Corresponding author
Tooley, Kristen M.
Venue
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
Published
2022-11-03
Volume
30
Issue
3
Pages
882-896
ISSN
  • 1069-9384 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-5320
OpenAlex
W4308059499
Cited by
47
References
105
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 26
FWCI
1.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Keywords
structural priming, syntactic priming, sentence comprehension, lexical priming, structural representation, syntactic learning
MeSH terms
Humans, Learning, Comprehension

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