MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020157104 · doi:10.1097/wnr.0b013e328330251d

Event-related potentials show online influence of lexical biases on prosodic processing

2009· article· en· W2020157104 on OpenAlexafffund
Inbal Itzhak, Efrat Pauker, John E. Drury, Shari R. Baum, Karsten Steinhauer

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroreport · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityCentre for Research on Brain Language and Music
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsP600ProsodyTransitive relationParsingPsychologyEvent-related potentialVerbLexical decision taskCognitive psychologyComputer scienceLinguisticsNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceSpeech recognitionElectroencephalographyCognitionMathematicsNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This event-related potential study examined how the human brain integrates (i) structural preferences, (ii) lexical biases, and (iii) prosodic information when listeners encounter ambiguous 'garden path' sentences. Data showed that in the absence of overt prosodic boundaries, verb-intrinsic transitivity biases influence parsing preferences (late closure) online, resulting in a larger P600 garden path effect for transitive than intransitive verbs. Surprisingly, this lexical effect was mediated by prosodic processing, a closure positive shift brain response was elicited in total absence of acoustic boundary markers for transitively biased sentences only. Our results suggest early interactive integration of hierarchically organized processes rather than purely independent effects of lexical and prosodic information. As a primacy of prosody would predict, overt speech boundaries overrode both structural preferences and transitivity biases.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.675

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations52
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroreportSame topicNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismFrench-language works237,207