Rocessing literature, and has been discussed with respect to the relationships between several different levels and types of representation. In the speech recognition literature, many researchers would acknowledge that higher level lexical information that has been activated by prior bottom-up phonetic input can be used to predictively pre-activate upcoming potential phonemes, prior to new bottom-up acoustic information arriving at the phonemic level of representation (Dahan Magnuson, 2006; McClelland Elman, 1986). In this literature, the main debate has been whether feedback connections from the lexical level to the phonological level can continue to affect the processing of the phonetic/phonological input that is PM01183 web currently being processed, such as lexical activity to fish leading to further enhancement of activity to /fl/ (see Norris, 1994; Norris McQueen, 2008; Norris, McQueen, Cutler, 2000 for discussion). In the sentence and discourse processing literatures, there has been more controversy about whether higher level information within our internal representations of context can be used to predictively pre-activate upcoming information at lower levels of representation (see Federmeier, 2007; Kutas et al., 2011 for discussion). Early models argued for lexical predictive pre-activation (Morton, 1969). Later models, however, argued that a messagelevel representation of context influenced processing of new inputs only after lexical (Forster, 1981; Marslen-Wilson, 1987; Swinney, 1979) or more distributed (Gaskell Marslen-Wilson, 1997; Gaskell Marslen-Wilson, 1999) representations had been initially activated from the bottom-up input (see Frauenfelder, 1987, for discussion). Only at this stage could this message-level representation exert its effect, acting to select the most appropriate candidates. This slightly later effect of context was said to lead to facilitated integration of the incoming word7, and it distinguished these frameworks from the more fully interactive activation models from which they were originally inspired (Elman McClelland, 1984; McClelland Rumelhart, 1981). While constraint-based models of sentence processing generally remained agnostic as to the role of pre-activation in processing, there was sometimes an implicit assumption that high level contextual influences like plausibility and coherence act primarily to select syntactic frames that had already been activated by the bottom-up lexical input (see Kuperberg, 2007, and Ferreira, 2003, for discussion).7Note, however, that the term integration has been used in different ways in the literature. The usage described here contrasts integration with pre-activation (Federmeier, 2007; see also Van Lurbinectedin custom synthesis Petten Luka, 2012, for discussion). Others, however, have used the term integration to refer more specifically to the process by which a word is combined or unified with its context to come up with a propositional meaning (e.g. Hagoort, Baggio, Willems, 2009; Jackendoff, 2002; Lau, Phillips, Poeppel, 2008).Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptLang Cogn Neurosci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 January 01.Kuperberg and JaegerPagePredictive pre-activation versus pre-activation through priming–One theme that emerged from the lexical, sentence, and discourse processing literatures, was a distinction between pre-activation through top-down prediction, and pre-activation through priming.8 Some researchers distinguishe.Rocessing literature, and has been discussed with respect to the relationships between several different levels and types of representation. In the speech recognition literature, many researchers would acknowledge that higher level lexical information that has been activated by prior bottom-up phonetic input can be used to predictively pre-activate upcoming potential phonemes, prior to new bottom-up acoustic information arriving at the phonemic level of representation (Dahan Magnuson, 2006; McClelland Elman, 1986). In this literature, the main debate has been whether feedback connections from the lexical level to the phonological level can continue to affect the processing of the phonetic/phonological input that is currently being processed, such as lexical activity to fish leading to further enhancement of activity to /fl/ (see Norris, 1994; Norris McQueen, 2008; Norris, McQueen, Cutler, 2000 for discussion). In the sentence and discourse processing literatures, there has been more controversy about whether higher level information within our internal representations of context can be used to predictively pre-activate upcoming information at lower levels of representation (see Federmeier, 2007; Kutas et al., 2011 for discussion). Early models argued for lexical predictive pre-activation (Morton, 1969). Later models, however, argued that a messagelevel representation of context influenced processing of new inputs only after lexical (Forster, 1981; Marslen-Wilson, 1987; Swinney, 1979) or more distributed (Gaskell Marslen-Wilson, 1997; Gaskell Marslen-Wilson, 1999) representations had been initially activated from the bottom-up input (see Frauenfelder, 1987, for discussion). Only at this stage could this message-level representation exert its effect, acting to select the most appropriate candidates. This slightly later effect of context was said to lead to facilitated integration of the incoming word7, and it distinguished these frameworks from the more fully interactive activation models from which they were originally inspired (Elman McClelland, 1984; McClelland Rumelhart, 1981). While constraint-based models of sentence processing generally remained agnostic as to the role of pre-activation in processing, there was sometimes an implicit assumption that high level contextual influences like plausibility and coherence act primarily to select syntactic frames that had already been activated by the bottom-up lexical input (see Kuperberg, 2007, and Ferreira, 2003, for discussion).7Note, however, that the term integration has been used in different ways in the literature. The usage described here contrasts integration with pre-activation (Federmeier, 2007; see also Van Petten Luka, 2012, for discussion). Others, however, have used the term integration to refer more specifically to the process by which a word is combined or unified with its context to come up with a propositional meaning (e.g. Hagoort, Baggio, Willems, 2009; Jackendoff, 2002; Lau, Phillips, Poeppel, 2008).Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptLang Cogn Neurosci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 January 01.Kuperberg and JaegerPagePredictive pre-activation versus pre-activation through priming–One theme that emerged from the lexical, sentence, and discourse processing literatures, was a distinction between pre-activation through top-down prediction, and pre-activation through priming.8 Some researchers distinguishe.