Unveiling the need of interactions for social N400s and supporting the N400 inhibition hypothesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When participants (Pps) are presented with stimuli in the presence of another person, they may consider that person's perspective. Indeed, five recent ERP studies show that the amplitudes of their N400s are increased. The two most recent ones reveal that these social-N400 increases occur even when instructions do not require a focus on the other's perspective. These increases also happen when Pps know that this other person has the same stimulus information as they have. However, in all these works, Pps could see the other person. Here, we tested whether the interaction occurring with this sight is important or whether these social N400 increases also occur when the other person is seated a bit behind Pps, who are aware of it. All had to decide whether the word ending short stories was coherent, incoherent, or equivocal. No social N400 increase was observed: N400s elicited by those words in Pps who were with a confederate (n = 50) were similar to those of Pps who were alone (n = 51). On the other hand, equivocal endings did not elicit larger N400s than coherent ones but triggered larger late posterior positivities (LPPs), like 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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".