Skip to main content
bioRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search
Contradictory Results

Prediction (or not) during language processing. A commentary on Nieuwland et al. (2017) and DeLong et al. (2005)

Shaorong Yan, Gina R. Kuperberg, T. Florian Jaeger
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/143750
Shaorong Yan
1Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, University of Rochester
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gina R. Kuperberg
2Department of Psychology, Tufts University; Department of Psychiatry and the Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
T. Florian Jaeger
3Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Department of Computer Science, Department of Linguistics, University of Rochester
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

The extent to which language processing involves prediction of upcoming inputs remains a question of ongoing debate. One important data point comes from DeLong et al. (2005) who reported that an N400-like event-related potential correlated with a probabilistic index of upcoming input. This result is often cited as evidence for gradient probabilistic prediction of form and/or semantics, prior to the bottom-up input becoming available. However, a recent multi-lab study reports a failure to find these effects (Nieuwland et al., 2017). We review the evidence from both studies, including differences in the design and analysis approach between them. Building on over a decade of research on prediction since DeLong et al. (2005)’s original study, we also begin to spell out the computational nature of predictive processes that one might expect to correlate with ERPs that are evoked by a functional element whose form is dependent on an upcoming predicted word. For paradigms with this type of design, we propose an index of anticipatory processing, Bayesian surprise, and apply it to the updating of semantic predictions. We motivate this index both theoretically and empirically. We show that, for studies of the type discussed here, Bayesian surprise can be closely approximated by another, more easily estimated information theoretic index, the surprisal (or Shannon information) of the input. We re-analyze the data from Nieuwland and colleagues using surprisal rather than raw probabilities as an index of prediction. We find that surprisal is gradiently correlated with the amplitude of the N400, even in the data shared by Nieuwland and colleagues. Taken together, our review suggests that the evidence from both studies is compatible with anticipatory semantic processing. We do, however, emphasize the need for future studies to further clarify the nature and degree of form prediction, as well as its neural signatures, during language comprehension.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted May 30, 2017.
Download PDF
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Prediction (or not) during language processing. A commentary on Nieuwland et al. (2017) and DeLong et al. (2005)
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Prediction (or not) during language processing. A commentary on Nieuwland et al. (2017) and DeLong et al. (2005)
Shaorong Yan, Gina R. Kuperberg, T. Florian Jaeger
bioRxiv 143750; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/143750
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Prediction (or not) during language processing. A commentary on Nieuwland et al. (2017) and DeLong et al. (2005)
Shaorong Yan, Gina R. Kuperberg, T. Florian Jaeger
bioRxiv 143750; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/143750

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Neuroscience
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Animal Behavior and Cognition (4085)
  • Biochemistry (8755)
  • Bioengineering (6477)
  • Bioinformatics (23331)
  • Biophysics (11743)
  • Cancer Biology (9144)
  • Cell Biology (13242)
  • Clinical Trials (138)
  • Developmental Biology (7412)
  • Ecology (11364)
  • Epidemiology (2066)
  • Evolutionary Biology (15084)
  • Genetics (10397)
  • Genomics (14006)
  • Immunology (9115)
  • Microbiology (22036)
  • Molecular Biology (8777)
  • Neuroscience (47345)
  • Paleontology (350)
  • Pathology (1420)
  • Pharmacology and Toxicology (2480)
  • Physiology (3703)
  • Plant Biology (8045)
  • Scientific Communication and Education (1431)
  • Synthetic Biology (2207)
  • Systems Biology (6014)
  • Zoology (1249)