Article | Published:

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

Nature Neuroscience volume 8, pages 11171121 (2005) | Download Citation

Subjects

Abstract

Despite the numerous examples of anticipatory cognitive processes at micro and macro levels in many animal species, the idea that anticipation of specific words plays an integral role in real-time language processing has been contentious. Here we exploited a phonological regularity of English indefinite articles ('an' precedes nouns beginning with vowel sounds, whereas 'a' precedes nouns beginning with consonant sounds) in combination with event-related brain potential recordings from the human scalp to show that readers' brains can pre-activate individual words in a graded fashion to a degree that can be estimated from the probability that each word is given as a continuation for a sentence fragment offline. These findings are evidence that readers use the words in a sentence (as cues to their world knowledge) to estimate relative likelihoods for upcoming words.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    & Mechanisms of sentence context effects in reading: automatic activation and conscious attention. Mem. Cognit. 7, 77–85 (1979).

  2. 2.

    & Towards a model of text comprehension and production. Psychol. Rev. 85, 363–394 (1978).

  3. 3.

    & Sentence comprehension: a case study in the relation of knowledge and perception. in Handbook of Perception, Vol. 7 (eds. Carterette, E. & Friedman, M.) 299–317 (Academic, New York, 1978).

  4. 4.

    & A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychol. Rev. 87, 329–354 (1980).

  5. 5.

    & Individual differences in integrating information between and within sentences. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 9, 561–584 (1983).

  6. 6.

    & The effects of context and content on immediate processing in reading. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 30, 609–636 (1978).

  7. 7.

    Sentence perception as an interactive parallel process. Science 189, 226–228 (1975).

  8. 8.

    & Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition 30, 191–238 (1988).

  9. 9.

    Processing local and unbounded dependencies: a unified account. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 23, 323–352 (1994).

  10. 10.

    & The on-line effects of semantic context on syntactic processing. J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 16, 683–692 (1977).

  11. 11.

    , & Influence of connectives on language comprehension: eye-tracking evidence for incremental interpretation. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. A 50A, 481–497 (1997).

  12. 12.

    & The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition 8, 1–71 (1980).

  13. 13.

    Grammar, interpretation, and processing from the lexicon. in Lexical Representation and Process (ed. Marslen-Wilson, W.D.) 463–504 (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1989).

  14. 14.

    , , & Verb argument structure in parsing and interpretation: Evidence from wh-questions. J. Mem. Lang. 34, 774–806 (1995).

  15. 15.

    , , & Integration of visual and linguistic information during spoken language comprehension. Science 268, 1632–1634 (1995).

  16. 16.

    & Event-related brain potentials to grammatical errors and semantic anomalies. Mem. Cognit. 11, 539–550 (1983).

  17. 17.

    & Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science 207, 203–204 (1980).

  18. 18.

    & Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature 307, 161–163 (1984).

  19. 19.

    & Incremental interpretation at verbs: restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition 73, 247–264 (1999).

  20. 20.

    , , & Eye movements and lexical access in spoken-language comprehension: evaluating a linking hypothesis between fixations and linguistic processing. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 29, 557–580 (2000).

  21. 21.

    , & Integration of syntactic and semantic information in predictive processing: cross-linguistic evidence from German and English. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 32, 37–55 (2003).

  22. 22.

    & Structural parallelism and discourse coherence: a test of centering theory. J. Mem. Lang. 39, 593–608 (1998).

  23. 23.

    , , & Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation. Cognition 71, 109–148 (1999).

  24. 24.

    & A rose by any other name: long-term memory structure and sentence processing. J. Mem. Lang. 41, 469–495 (1999).

  25. 25.

    , & Anticipating words and their gender: an event-related brain potential study of semantic integration, gender expectancy, and gender agreement in Spanish sentence reading. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 16, 1272–1288 (2004).

  26. 26.

    , , & Potato not Pope: human brain potentials to gender expectation and agreement in Spanish spoken sentences. Neurosci. Lett. 346, 165–168 (2003).

  27. 27.

    , , , & Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: evidence from ERPs and reading times. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 31, 443–467 (2005).

  28. 28.

    Saccade size control in reading: evidence for the linguistic control hypothesis. Percept. Psychophys. 25, 501–509 (1979).

  29. 29.

    Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) elicited during rapid serial visual presentation of congruous and incongruous sentences. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 40 (suppl.), 406–411 (1987).

  30. 30.

    , & An electrophysiological study of semantic processing in young and middle-aged academics. Psychophysiology 29, 38–54 (1992).

  31. 31.

    & A brain potential whose latency indexes the length and frequency of words. CRL Newsletter 10, 1–9 (1995).

  32. 32.

    & Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Lang. Cognitive Proc. 8, 573–633 (1993).

Download references

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to E. De Ochoa and J. Cagle for help with data collection and to J. Elman for helpful comments on this manuscript. This research was supported by US National Institute of Child Health and Human Development grant HD22614 and National Institute on Aging grant AG08313 to M.K. and by a Center for Research in Language Training Fellowship to K.A.D.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Cognitive Science, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093, USA.

    • Katherine A DeLong
    • , Thomas P Urbach
    •  & Marta Kutas
  2. Department of Neurosciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093, USA.

    • Marta Kutas

Authors

  1. Search for Katherine A DeLong in:

  2. Search for Thomas P Urbach in:

  3. Search for Marta Kutas in:

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katherine A DeLong.

Supplementary information

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1504

Further reading