One of the basic tenets of predictive theories of language processing is that of misprediction cost. Post-N400 positive event-related potential (ERP) components are suitable for studying misprediction cost but are not adequately described, especially in older adults, who show attenuated N400 ERP effects. We report a secondary analysis of a previously collected EEG data set. Using a picture–word matching paradigm, in which the target word could sometimes be predicted by context and sometimes not, the relationship between aging and late ERP effects was examined. Positivity effects for prediction violations were larger and more extended in older compared with younger adults, independent of context. Younger adults showed frontal negativity effects, indicating frame-shifting processes. Our data suggest that aging does not entail specific declines in prediction. Rather, they indicate that older adults may experience more processing difficulties than younger adults when their expectations are disconfirmed and that multiple mechanisms may be employed during language processing.
AaronsonD.ScarboroughH. S. (1976). Performance theories for sentence coding: Some quantitative evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2(1), 56–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.2.1.56
2.
AurnhammerC.FrankS. L. (2019). Evaluating information-theoretic measures of word prediction in naturalistic sentence reading. Neuropsychologia, 134, Article 107198.
3.
BeeseC.Werkle-BergnerM.LindenbergerU.FriedericiA. D.MeyerL. (2019). Adult age differences in the benefit of syntactic and semantic constraints for sentence processing. Psychology and Aging, 34(1), 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000300
4.
BroderickM. P.Di LibertoG. M.AndersonA. J.RofesA.LalorE. C. (2021). Dissociable electrophysiological measures of natural language processing reveal differences in speech comprehension strategy in healthy ageing. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 1–12.
5.
BrothersT.WlotkoE. W.WarnkeL.KuperbergG. R. (2020). Going the extra mile: Effects of discourse context on two late positivities during language comprehension. Neurobiology of Language, 1(1), 1–58.
6.
CabezaR. (2002). Hemispheric asymmetry reduction in older adults: The HAROLD model. Psychology and Aging, 17(1), 85–100.
7.
CabezaR.AndersonN. D.LocantoreJ. K.McIntoshA. R. (2002). Aging gracefully: Compensatory brain activity in high-performing older adults. Neuroimage, 17(3), 1394–1402.
8.
CheimariouS.FarmerT. A.GordonJ. K. (2019). Lexical prediction in the aging brain: The effects of predictiveness and congruency on the N400 ERP component. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 26, 701–806. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2018.1529733
9.
CheimariouS.FarmerT. A.GordonJ. K. (2021). The effects of age and verbal ability on word predictability in reading. Psychology and Aging, 36(4), 531–542.
10.
ChoiW.LowderM. W.FerreiraF.SwaabT. Y.HendersonJ. M. (2017). Effects of word predictability and preview lexicality on eye movements during reading: A comparison between young and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 32(3), 232–242.
11.
ClarkA. (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(3), 181–204.
12.
CoulsonS.KutasM. (2001). Getting it: Human event-related brain response to jokes in good and poor comprehenders. Neuroscience Letters, 316(2), 71–74.
13.
DaveS.BrothersT. A.TraxlerM. J.FerreiraF.HendersonJ. M.SwaabT. Y. (2018). Electrophysiological evidence for preserved primacy of lexical prediction in aging. Neuropsychologia, 117, 135–147.
14.
Delaney-BuschN.MorganE.LauE. F.KuperbergG. R. (2017, July26–29). Comprehenders rationally adapt semantic predictions to the statistics of the local environment: A Bayesian model of trial-by-trial N400 amplitudes [Paper presentation]. CogSci, London, UK.
15.
DeLongK. A.GroppeD. M.UrbachT. P.KutasM. (2012). Thinking ahead or not? Natural aging and anticipation during reading. Brain and Language, 121(3), 226–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2012.02.006
16.
DeLongK. A.KutasM. (2020). Comprehending surprising sentences: Sensitivity of post-N400 positivities to contextual congruity and semantic relatedness. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 35, 1044–1066.
17.
DeLongK. A.QuanteL.KutasM. (2014). Predictability, plausibility, and two late ERP positivities during written sentence comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 61, 150–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.06.016
18.
DeLongK. A.UrbachT. P.KutasM. (2005). Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience, 8(8), 1117–1121. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1504
19.
DikkerS.PylkkanenL. (2011). Before the N400: Effects of lexical-semantic violations in visual cortex. Brain and Language, 118(1–2), 23–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2011.02.006
FedermeierK. D.KutasM. (1999). A rose by any other name: Long-term memory structure and sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(4), 469–495. https://doi.org/I101006/jmla19992660
23.
FedermeierK. D.KutasM. (2005). Aging in context: Age-related changes in context use during language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 42(2), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2005.00274.x
24.
FedermeierK. D.KutasM.SchulR. (2010). Age-related and individual differences in the use of prediction during language comprehension. Brain and Language, 115(3), 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2010.07.006
25.
FedermeierK. D.McLennanD. B.De OchoaE.KutasM. (2002). The impact of semantic memory organization and sentence context information on spoken language processing by younger and older adults: An ERP study. Psychophysiology, 39(2), 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0048577202001373
26.
FedermeierK. D.WlotkoE. W.De Ochoa-DewaldE.KutasM. (2007). Multiple effects of sentential constraint on word processing. Brain Research, 1146, 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.06.101
27.
FitzH.ChangF. (2019). Language ERPs reflect learning through prediction error propagation. Cognitive Psychology, 111, 15–52.
28.
FolsteinM. F.FolsteinS. E.McHughP. R. (1975). “Mini-mental state”: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12(3), 189–198.
29.
ForsterK. I. (1981). Priming and the effects of sentence and lexical contexts on naming time: Evidence for autonomous lexical processing. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33(4), 465–495.
30.
FrankS. L.OttenL.GalliG.ViglioccoG. (2013, August4–9). Word surprisal predicts N400 amplitude during reading [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Sofia, Bulgaria.
31.
FrankS. L.OttenL. J.GalliG.ViglioccoG. (2015). The ERP response to the amount of information conveyed by words in sentences. Brain and Language, 140, 1–11.
32.
FrissonS.HarveyD. R.StaubA. (2017). No prediction error cost in reading: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 95, 200–214.
33.
Galdo-AlvarezS.LindínM.DíazF. (2009). Age-related prefrontal over-recruitment in semantic memory retrieval: Evidence from successful face naming and the tip-of-the-tongue state. Biological Psychology, 82(1), 89–96.
34.
GoughP.AlfordA.Holley-WilcoxP. (1981). Words and context. In TzengO.SingerH. (Eds.), Perception of print: Reading research in experimental psychology (pp. 85–102). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
35.
GrattonG.ColesM. G.DonchinE. (1983). A new method for off-line removal of ocular artifact. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 55(4), 468–484.
36.
HagoortP.BaggioG.WillemsR. M. (2009). Semantic unification. In GazzanigaM.S. (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences (4th ed., pp. 819–836): MIT press.
37.
HaleJ.DyerC.KuncoroA.BrennanJ. (2018, July). Finding syntax in human encephalography with beam search [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), Melbourne, Australia.
38.
JackendoffR. (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford University Press.
39.
JASP Team. (2020). JASP (Version 0.13.1).
40.
KoenJ. D.RuggM. D. (2019). Neural dedifferentiation in the aging brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(7), 547–559.
41.
KuperbergG. R.BrothersT.WlotkoE. W. (2020). A tale of two positivities and the N400: Distinct neural signatures are evoked by confirmed and violated predictions at different levels of representation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 32(1), 12–35.
42.
KuperbergG. R.JaegerT. F. (2016). What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension?Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 3(1), 32–59.
43.
KutasM. (1993). In the company of other words: Electrophysiological evidence for single-word and sentence context effects. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8(4), 533–572.
44.
KutasM.FedermeierK. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 621–647. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123
KutasM.HillyardS. A. (1984a). Brain potentials reflect word expectancy and semantic association during reading. Nature, 307, 161–163.
47.
KutasM.HillyardS. A. (1984b). Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) elicited by novel stimuli during sentence processing. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 425, 236–241.
48.
KutasM.IraguiV. (1998). The N400 in a semantic categorization task across 6 decades. Evoked Potentials-Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 108(5), 456–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-5597(98)00023-9
49.
KutasM.Van PettenC. K.KluenderR. (2006). Psycholinguistics electrified II (1994–2005). In TraxlerM.J.GernsbacherM.A. (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 659–724). Elsevier.
50.
LauE. F.NamystA.FogelA.DelgadoT. (2016). A direct comparison of N400 effects of predictability and incongruity in adjective-noun combination. Collabra: Psychology, 2(1), 13.
51.
LoganJ. M.SandersA. L.SnyderA. Z.MorrisJ. C.BucknerR. L. (2002). Under-recruitment and nonselective recruitment: Dissociable neural mechanisms associated with aging. Neuron, 33(5), 827–840.
52.
LukeS. G.ChristiansonK. (2016). Limits on lexical prediction during reading. Cognitive Psychology, 88, 22–60.
53.
MaddenD. J. (1988). Adult age differences in the effects of sentence context and stimulus degradation during visual word recognition. Psychology and Aging, 3(2), 167–172.
54.
MichaelovJ. A.BergenB. K. (2020). How well does surprisal explain N400 amplitude under different experimental conditions?Preprint (arXiv:2010.04844).
55.
ParkD. C.LautenschlagerG.HeddenT.DavidsonN. S.SmithA. D.SmithP. K. (2002). Models of visuospatial and verbal memory across the adult life span. Psychology and Aging, 17(2), 299–320.
56.
ParkD. C.Reuter-LorenzP. (2009). The adaptive brain: Aging and neurocognitive scaffolding. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 173–196.
57.
PayneB. R.Stine-MorrowE. A. L. (2014). Adult age differences in wrap-up during sentence comprehension: Evidence from ex-Gaussian distributional analyses of reading time. Psychology and Aging, 29(2), 213–228.
58.
RaynerK.SerenoS. C.MorrisR. K.SchmauderA. R.CliftonC. (1989). Eye movements and on-line language comprehension processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4(3–4), SI21–SI49.
59.
RubensteinH.AbornM. (1958). Learning, prediction, and readability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 42(1), 28–32.
60.
ShannonC. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379–423.
61.
Steen-BakerA. A.NgS.PayneB. R.AndersonC. J.FedermeierK. D.Stine-MorrowE. A. L. (2017). The effects of context on processing words during sentence reading among adults varying in age and literacy skill. Psychology and Aging, 32(5), 460–472.
62.
Stine-MorrowE. A. L.LovelessM. K.SoederbergL. M. (1996). Resource allocation in on-line reading by younger and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 11(3), 475–486. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.11.3.475
63.
Stine-MorrowE. A. L.MillerL. M. S.HertzogC. (2006). Aging and self-regulated language processing. Psychological Bulletin, 132(4), 582–606.
64.
Stine-MorrowE. A. L.ShakeM. C.MilesJ. R.LeeK.GaoX.McConkieG. (2010). Pay now or pay later: Aging and the role of boundary salience in self-regulation of conceptual integration in sentence processing. Psychology and Aging, 25(1), 168–176.
65.
Stine-MorrowE. A. L.Soederberg MillerL. M.GagneD. D.HertzogC. (2008). Self-regulated reading in adulthood. Psychology and Aging, 23(1), 131–153.
66.
TaylorW. L. (1953). “Cloze procedure”: A new tool for measuring readability. Journalism Quarterly, 30, 415–433.
67.
ThornhillD. E.Van PettenC. (2012). Lexical versus conceptual anticipation during sentence processing: Frontal positivity and N400 ERP components. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 83(3), 382–392.
68.
Van PettenC.LukaB. J. (2012). Prediction during language comprehension: Benefits, costs, and ERP components. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 83(2), 176–190.
69.
WlotkoE. W.FedermeierK. D. (2012a). Age-related changes in the impact of contextual strength on multiple aspects of sentence comprehension. Psychophysiology, 49(6), 770–785. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01366.x
70.
WlotkoE. W.FedermeierK. D. (2012b). So that’s what you meant! Event-related potentials reveal multiple aspects of context use during construction of message-level meaning. Neuroimage, 62(1), 356–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.054
71.
WlotkoE. W.FedermeierK. D.KutasM. (2012). To predict or not to predict: Age-related differences in the use of sentential context. Psychology and Aging, 27(4), 975–988. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029206
72.
WolkD. A.SenN. M.ChongH.RiisJ. L.McGinnisS. M.HolcombP. J.DaffnerK. R. (2009). ERP correlates of item recognition memory: Effects of age and performance. Brain Research, 1250, 218–231.
