Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Readers use prior context to predict features of upcoming words. When predictions are accurate, this increases the efficiency of comprehension. However, little is known about the fate of predictable and unpredictable words in memory or the neural systems governing these processes. Several theories suggest that the speech production system, including the left inferior frontal cortex (LIFC), is recruited for prediction but evidence that LIFC plays a causal role is lacking. We first examined the effects of predictability on memory and then tested the role of posterior LIFC using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). In Experiment 1, participants read category cues, followed by a predictable, unpredictable, or incongruent target word for later recall. We observed a predictability benefit to memory, with predictable words remembered better than unpredictable words. In Experiment 2, participants performed the same task with electroencephalography (EEG) while undergoing event-related TMS over posterior LIFC using a protocol known to disrupt speech production, or over the right hemisphere homologue as an active control site. Under control stimulation, predictable words were better recalled than unpredictable words, replicating Experiment 1. This predictability benefit to memory was eliminated under LIFC stimulation. Moreover, while an a priori ROI-based analysis did not yield evidence for a reduction in the N400 predictability effect, mass-univariate analyses did suggest that the N400 predictability effect was reduced in spatial and temporal extent under LIFC stimulation. Collectively, these results provide causal evidence that the LIFC is recruited for prediction during silent reading, consistent with prediction-through-production accounts.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/psyp.14312 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!