J. Cogn. Neurosci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by George, M. St.
Right arrow Articles by Hoffman, a. J. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by George, M. St.
Right arrow Articles by Hoffman, a. J. E.

The Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, Vol 9, 776-787, Copyright © 1997 by The MIT Press

ARTICLES

Individual Differences in Inference Generation: An ERP Analysis

Marie St. George, Suzanne Mannes and and James E. Hoffman

Readers routinely draw inferences with remarkable efficiency and seemingly little cognitive effort. The present study was designed to explore different types of inferences during the course of reading, and the potential effects of differing levels of working memory capacity on the likelihood that inferences would be made. The electroencephalogram (EEG) was recorded from five scalp sites while participants read 90 paragraphs, composed of 60 experimental paragraphs and 30 filler paragraphs. Each experimental paragraph was four sentences long, and the final sentence stated explicitly the inference that readers did or did not make. There were four types of experimental paragraphs: (1) Bridging inference, (2) Elaborative inference, (3) Word-Based Priming control, and (4) man and Carpenter (1980) Reading Span Task and categorized as having low or high working memory capacity. The average peaks of the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP) were used as a measure of semantic priming and integration, such that the lower the N400 was in response to the explicitly stated inference concept, the more likely it was that the reader made the inference. Results indicate that readers with high working memory capacity made both bridging (necessary) and elaborative (optional) inferences during reading, whereas readers with low working memory capacity made only bridging inferences during reading. We interpret the findings within the framework of the Capacity Constrained Comprehension model of Just and Carpenter (1992).


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Cogn. Neurosci.Home page
S. Virtue, T. Parrish, and M. Jung-Beeman
Inferences during Story Comprehension: Cortical Recruitment Affected by Predictability of Events and Working Memory Capacity
J. Cogn. Neurosci., December 1, 2008; 20(12): 2274 - 2284.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Cogn. Neurosci.Home page
M. S. Nieuwland and J. J. A. Van Berkum
When peanuts fall in love: n400 evidence for the power of discourse.
J. Cogn. Neurosci., July 1, 2006; 18(7): 1098 - 1111.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Cogn. Neurosci.Home page
J. J. A. v. Berkum, P. Hagoort, and C. M. Brown
Semantic Integration in Sentences and Discourse: Evidence from the N400
J. Cogn. Neurosci., November 1, 1999; 11(6): 657 - 671.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
NEURAL COMPUTATION J COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE MIT PRESS JOURNALS
Copyright © 1997 by The MIT Press.