Simulating the N400 ERP component as semantic network error: Insights from a feature-based connectionist attractor model of word meaning.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The N400 ERP component is widely used in research on language and semantic memory. Although the component’s relation to semantic processing is well-established, the computational mechanisms underlying N400 generation are currently unclear (Kutas & Federmeier, 2011). We explored the mechanisms underlying the N400 by examining how a connectionist model’s performance measures covary with N400 amplitudes. We simulated seven N400 effects obtained in human empirical research. Network error was consistently in the same direction as N400 amplitudes, namely larger for low frequency words, larger for words with many features, larger for words with many orthographic neighbors, and smaller for semantically related target words as well as repeated words. Furthermore, the repetition-induced decrease was stronger for low frequency words, and for words with many semantic features. In contrast, semantic activation corresponded less well with the N400. Our results suggest an interesting relation between N400 amplitudes and semantic network error. In psychological terms, error values in connectionist models have been conceptualized as implicit prediction error, and we interpret our results as support for the idea that N400 amplitudes reflect implicit prediction error in semantic memory (McClelland, 1994).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".