Don't stay behind or you won't boost my N400
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When a participant and another person are both presented with a stimulus, five recent event-related potential (ERP) studies show that the participant may also consider the perspective this other person may have about the stimulus. Indeed, these studies reveal additional N400 activities in participants who are with such a person. Interestingly, the two most recent ones show that this is the case even when task instructions do not explicitly require a focus on the perspective of this other person. Moreover, they reveal that these social N400 increases can occur even if participants know that this person is having the same information as they have. However, in all these studies, participants could see this other person. Here, we looked at whether this sight is important or whether these social-induced N400 increases could be observed when participants know this other person is there but do not see him/her as (s)he is placed a bit behind them. They had to decide whether the word ending short stories was coherent, incoherent or equivocal. In participants who were with the confederate (n = 50), the amplitudes of the N400s elicited by these endings were found to be like those of the participants who were alone (n=51). On the other hand, in both groups, equivocal endings did not elicit larger N400s than coherent endings but triggered larger late posterior positivities (LPPs), as in previous studies. The discussion focuses on the circumstances in which perspective taking occurs and on the functional significance of the N400 and the LPP.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".