Discourse Processes

ISSN: 0163-853X (Print) 1532-6950 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/hdsp20

Validation: Knowledge- and Text-Based Monitoring

During Reading

Marianne L. van Moort, Arnout Koornneef & Paul W. van den Broek

To cite this article: Marianne L. van Moort, Arnout Koornneef & Paul W. van den Broek (2018)
Validation: Knowledge- and Text-Based Monitoring During Reading, Discourse Processes,
55:5-6, 480-496, DOI: 10.1080/0163853X.2018.1426319

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2018.1426319

© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Taylor &

Francis.

Published online: 20 Feb 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3423

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hdsp20
DISCOURSE PROCESSES
2018, VOL. 55, NOS. 5–6, 480–496
https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2018.1426319

Validation: Knowledge- and Text-Based Monitoring During

Reading
Marianne L. van Moort , Arnout Koornneef, and Paul W. van den Broek
Department of Educational Science and Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition Leiden University, Leiden, The
Netherlands

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

To create a coherent and correct mental representation of a text, readers Received 22 September 2017
must validate incoming information; they must monitor information for Accepted 8 January 2018
consistency with the preceding text and their background knowledge.
The current study aims to contrast text- and knowledge-based monitoring
to investigate their unique influences on processing and whether validation
is passive or reader-initiated. Therefore, we collected reading times in a self-
paced experiment using expository texts containing information that con-
flicts with either the preceding text or readers’ background knowledge.
Results show that text- and knowledge-based monitoring have different
time courses and that working memory affects only knowledge-based
monitoring. Furthermore, our results suggest that validation could occur
at different levels of processing and perhaps draw on different mixes of
passive and reader-initiated processes. These results contribute to our
understanding of monitoring during reading and of how different sources
of information can influence such monitoring.

Introduction
A central tenet in reading research is that readers go through a text trying to create a coherent
mental representation that is continuously updated when new information is encountered (e.g.,
Graesser, Singer, & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1988; O’Brien & Myers, 1999; Trabasso, Secco, & Van
Den Broek, 1984; Van Den Broek, Young, Tzeng, & Linderholm, 1999; Fletcher & Bloom, 1988:
Kintsch & Van Dijk, 1978; Van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983; McNamara & Magliano, 2009; Van Den Broek,
2010). In a high-quality mental representation, individual elements of the text are connected to each
other and to relevant background knowledge by meaningful relations. Together, these elements and
relations create a “situation model,” an interpreted description of the information in the text
(Kintsch, 1998; Van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983; Zwaan & Radvansky, 1998). An essential aspect of
constructing connections during reading and, thereby, updating the situation model is that the
reader monitors the extent to which incoming information is accurate. Written materials frequently
contain inconsistencies, misinformation, or even fake news, especially today. In some cases readers
even integrate and use inaccurate information when they should know that what they are reading is
incorrect because they most likely have the accurate knowledge (Eslick, Fazio, & Marsh, 2011; Fazio
& Marsh, 2008a, 2008b; Marsh & Fazio, 2006; Marsh, Meade, & Roediger III, 2003; Fazio, Barber,
Rajaram, Ornstein, & Marsh, 2013). It is important that we understand how readers deal with such
inconsistencies and, more generally, how they monitor incoming information to create a mental
representation of both coherent, “error-free” texts and texts that contain inconsistencies (e.g.,
Albrecht & O’Brien, 1993; Rapp & Braasch, 2014; Richter & Rapp, 2014).

CONTACT Marianne L. van Moort [email protected] Educational Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences,
Leiden University, Wassenaarseweg 52, 2333, AK Leiden, The Netherlands.
This article has been republished with a minor change. This change does not impact the academic content of the article.
© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
 DISCOURSE PROCESSES 481

Knowledge- and text-based monitoring

To create a coherent and correct mental representation and to protect it against inaccuracies, readers
must validate incoming information. They can monitor such information for consistency with
previous text information and with their own knowledge and beliefs (Singer, 2013). Considerable
evidence indicates that validation against background knowledge occurs (e.g., O’Brien & Albrecht,
1992; Rapp, 2008; Richter, Schroeder, & Wöhrmann, 2009), at various levels of language processing
(i.e., sentence vs. discourse level), in different text genres (e.g., narrative and expository texts), and
through various research methods, such as behavioral and electrophysiological measures. For
example, readers of narrative (e.g., O’Brien & Albrecht, 1992) and expository texts (e.g., Rapp,
2008) have been found to be slower when they read target sentences that were inconsistent with their
world knowledge than when they read consistent target sentences, suggesting they indeed check the
incoming information against background knowledge. Similar patterns have been observed in event-
related potential studies, where an increase in the N400 event-related potential signal is taken to
indicate detection of inconsistency. Such increases in N400 have been observed for sentences that
contain information that is inconsistent with the reader’s background knowledge. For example,
compare the sentences “the Dutch trains are yellow and very crowded” and “the Dutch trains are
white and very crowded.” Although both sentences are linguistically correct, the second sentence
elicited a N400 event-related potential in Dutch research participants, because it is a well-known fact
among Dutch people that Dutch trains are yellow, and this sentence thus was inconsistent with their
background knowledge (e.g., Hagoort, Hald, Bastiaansen, & Petersson, 2004). Hence, there is ample
evidence that background knowledge influences validation.
In addition to validating information against background knowledge, readers should also validate
information against prior text, because specific sections of a text can be inconsistent with informa-
tion provided earlier or later in that same text. Previous research has shown that contextual
information (i.e., provided within a text) affects processing and comprehension of texts, for example
in studies investigating lexical access processes (Colbert-Getz & Cook, 2013), anaphoric references
(O’Brien, 1987; O’Brien, Albrecht, Hakala, & Rizzella, 1995; O’Brien, Plewes, & Albrecht, 1990),
bridging inferences (Myers, Cook, Kambe, Mason, & O’Brien, 2000), and those based on the
contradiction paradigm developed by O’Brien and colleagues (Albrecht & O’Brien, 1993; O’Brien,
Cook, & Guéraud, 2010; O’Brien, Cook, & Peracchi, 2004; O’Brien, Rizzella, Albrecht, & Halleran,
1998). Indeed, if contextual information is strong (e.g., recently encountered or more elaborate), it
interacts with or may even fully override the influence of world knowledge during reading (e.g.,
Colbert-Getz & Cook, 2013; Cook & Myers, 2004; Leinenger & Rayner, 2013; Myers et al., 2000;
Nieuwland & Van Berkum, 2006; Rizzella & O’Brien, 2002). Similarly, several studies using post-
reading tasks such as statement-verification tasks or general knowledge tests showed that readers
defer to text information (and not world knowledge), even when they are aware the information
provided by the text is incorrect (e.g., Gerrig & Prentice, 1991; Marsh et al., 2003). For example,
sometimes readers gave more incorrect answers on tests of general world knowledge after reading
texts that contained incorrect information than when they read texts containing correct or neutral
information (Marsh et al., 2003).
However, most studies on text-based monitoring do not explicitly exclude the influence of
background knowledge to investigate the influence of prior text (Isberner & Richter, 2014). Often,
the impacts of these two sources on processing and comprehension are studied in tandem, and as a
result the unique influence of either background knowledge or prior text remains unknown. For
example, O’Brien and Albrecht (1991) presented passages in which the contexts supported an
explicitly mentioned antecedent (e.g., cat) or an unmentioned concept (e.g., skunk) followed by a
sentence containing an anaphoric phrase (e.g., what had run in front of her car). Then they
presented naming probes for either the correct antecedent (e.g., cat), or the unnamed concept
(e.g., skunk). In this example the supportive context would mention “a terrific odor,” assuming
that readers are more likely to associate “a terrific odor” with “skunk” than with “cat” based on their
482 VAN MOORT ET AL.

background knowledge. They found that the unnamed concept (skunk) was activated in memory,
even despite the explicit reference to the correct antecedent (cat). This is one example that provides
compelling evidence that contextual information influences processing but does not explicitly
exclude the influence of background knowledge.
To summarize, it is clear that both knowledge-based and text-based monitoring influence text
processing. However, it is unclear how to distinguish between the two sources for validation and
how to define their unique influences.

Passive or reader-initiated
A second important issue that is debated in the literature is whether validation is a passive or a
reader-initiated process. There is some evidence that validation against background knowledge is
an automated, routine process (e.g., Hagoort & Van Berkum, 2007; Isberner & Richter, 2013;
Richter et al., 2009; Singer, 2006, 2013). For example, Singer (2006) demonstrated with a reading
time paradigm that readers verify information presented in everyday stories even when they do
not follow an intentional validation strategy. Thus, individuals seem to routinely validate
information they encounter in a discourse context. This is in line with the assumption of
memory-based text-processing views that connections between text segments and background
knowledge are formed via an effortless, autonomous spread of activation through existing
associations in readers’ semantic and episodic memory (e.g., Myers & O’Brien, 1998; O’Brien
et al., 1995; O’Brien & Myers, 1999). This would suggest that the detection of an inconsistency is
also passive. However, Singer and colleagues observed that reading tasks may influence the
degree to which readers rely on story contexts and prior knowledge, respectively, and, hence,
the effect of these sources on readers’ processing of texts’ (e.g., Singer, 2006; Singer &
Halldorson, 1996; Singer et al., 1992; see also Van Den Broek & Helder, 2017). If the degree
to which readers rely on the text or prior knowledge can be altered by the task they are given,
this would suggest that validation processes—or the subsequent processes that are triggered by
the validation process—are not completely passive and might be at least partially reader-initiated.
The above illustrates that the evidence on whether validation is passive or reader-initiated is
ambiguous.
Whether a process is passive or reader-initiated also influences the processing capacity that is
required to run it to completion. Passive processes are fast and relatively effortless and require
fewer cognitive resources than reader-initiated processes do. Thus, it could be that if validation
is a reader-initiated process, individual differences in processing capacity, for example in
working memory, influence the validation process. If validation is a reader-initiated process,
then perhaps working memory capacity serves as a bottleneck for the processing of inconsis-
tencies. To illustrate how this could be the case, it is important to consider how models of
reading comprehension define validation. They state that validation is one of three prominent
processes that are active during reading, namely activation, integration, and validation. First,
relevant concepts from memory are activated (activation), then the available concepts are
connected with the content of working memory (integration), and finally the connections that
are formed between concepts are validated to ensure they make sense (validation) (Cook &
O’Brien, 2014; O’Brien & Cook, 2016). Thus, to successfully validate the connections both the
newly read information and the relevant information from either background knowledge or the
previous text have to be active and available in working memory. It is crucial for the detection
of inconsistencies that the two are not only active but are co-activated in memory (Van Den
Broek & Kendeou, 2008). Consequently, working memory could play a role in this co-activation
(e.g., Hannon & Daneman, 2001; Singer, 2006) and, because its capacity is assumed to be
limited (Miller, 1956; Simon, 1974), could serve as a bottleneck for the processing of
inconsistencies.
 DISCOURSE PROCESSES 483

Current study
Our discussion indicates that information from both background knowledge and the text can
influence the validation process. However, to the best of our knowledge, prior studies have either
not made a direct comparison between these two types of validation or, if they did include both text
and background knowledge in their design, did not report on both types of validation. As a result, it
is unclear whether the mechanisms of validating against background knowledge are the same as
those validating against prior text or whether these mechanisms are fundamentally different. In the
current study we aimed to tease apart these two types of validation to investigate their unique
influence on processing by directly comparing them in a within-subjects design. Furthermore, we
aimed to shed light on whether validation is passive or reader-initiated and elucidate the role of
working memory during knowledge-based and text-based monitoring. We did so in a self-paced
reading experiment in which the participants read expository texts about historical topics. The
situations described in the texts either supported or called into question actual historical events.
Half of the texts continued with information that was incongruent with the text or inconsistent with
their background knowledge. The texts were presented sentence-by-sentence and reading times
recorded, providing a measure of readers’ difficulty integrating statements into a discourse repre-
sentation as texts unfold (e.g., Albrecht & O’Brien, 1993; Cook, Halleran, & O’Brien, 1998; Rapp,
Gerrig, & Prentice, 2001; Rapp, 2008).
To investigate whether validation is a passive or reader-initiated process, we used two different
approaches. First, participants received instructions during the reading task to focus them on either
background knowledge or the text. If validation is a more reader-initiated process, we would expect
participants to direct more resources to either validating against the text or validating against background
knowledge and, hence, for the type of instruction to interact with the inconsistency effect: When the
focus of the participants matches the type of inconsistency, the inconsistency effect would be larger than
when the two are different. For example, when they are focused on the text, they would show a larger
inconsistency effect for inconsistencies with text than for inconsistencies with background knowledge.
However, if validation is a passive process, we would expect the reader to be unable to influence the
validation process and their focus would not influence the inconsistency effect. Second, we consider the
possible role of individual differences in working memory capacity in validation. As mentioned earlier,
passive processes are seen as relatively effortless and require almost no cognitive resources, whereas
reader-initiated processes are more effortful and require cognitive resources. Therefore, if working
memory capacity is found to impact the processing of inconsistencies, then validation apparently
requires cognitive resources and thus likely is at least in part a reader-initiated process.

Methods
Participants
Fifty-eight university students (11 men and 47 women, mean age 22.4 years) participated in this study for
course credit or pay. All participants were native speakers of Dutch and had no diagnosed dyslexia and/
or developmental disorders such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or autism-spectrum disorders.
They also had normal or corrected-to-normal eyesight. Participants provided written informed consent
before testing, and all procedures were approved by the Leiden University Institute of Education and
Child Studies ethics committee and conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Materials
Norming study
The texts used in this experiment were based on materials used by Rapp (2008). Each text
contained a target statement that is either correct or incorrect with background knowledge and a
context (the sentences preceding the target) that either supports or calls into question the
484 VAN MOORT ET AL.

information in the target. The texts were about historical topics that are well known to readers.
To make sure that the facts described in the texts were common knowledge in our sample, we
conducted a norming study among 30 native Dutch participants (8 men and 22 women, mean
age 22.5 years). In the norming study 18 topics from the Rapp (2008) stimuli were translated and
used. In addition, we wrote texts about 80 new topics to make them more suitable for the
present sample of participants (e.g., a text about Babe Ruth was replaced by a text about Johan
Cruyff, a famous Dutch soccer player). The participants read either the historically correct or the
historically incorrect target sentence for the 98 topics and indicated (1) whether the sentence was
true or false and (2) how sure they were of their answer on a visual analog scale ranging from
“absolutely not sure” to “absolutely sure.” The certainty scores were calculated as a percentage of
the visual analog scale line. To determine familiarity with the items, a threshold of 70% of
participants selecting the correct answer was used as an indicator of high familiarity (e.g., Marsh
& Fazio, 2006; Marsh et al., 2003). After eliminating the unfamiliar topics, a final sample of 80
topics remained. For the 80 items used in the main study, on average 87% of the participants
answered them correctly (SD = 9.9) and were 77% certain of their answer (SD = 11.4).

Experimental texts
Four different versions of each of the 80 texts were constructed by orthogonally varying the context
before the target sentence (i.e., congruent vs. incongruent with target sentence) and the target
sentence itself (i.e., correct vs incorrect with the readers’ background knowledge). The context
could either bias toward the correct or the incorrect target, making the context either congruent
(i.e., bias-correct context paired with a correct target sentence or bias-incorrect context paired with
an incorrect target sentence) or incongruent (i.e., bias-correct context paired with an incorrect target
sentence or bias-incorrect context paired with a correct target sentence) with the target sentence. It
should be noted that the contexts that were biased toward an incorrect target sentence did not state
with certainty that the historical events (stated in the target sentence) would not occur or were
impossible; rather, they called into question the certainty of those events. To make sure there were
no inconsistencies with background knowledge before the presentation of the target sentence, all
facts described in the context sentences were historically correct.
Each text consisted of 10 sentences (see Table 1 for a sample text). The first two sentences were
identical among all conditions, providing an introduction to the topic. The next five sentences
(Sentences 3–7) of the texts differed in content, depending on context condition (congruent/incon-
gruent). On average, the bias-correct context consisted of 64 words (SD = 4.20) and 399 characters
(SD = 23.48), and the bias-incorrect context consisted of 66 words (SD = 4.30) and 407 characters
(SD = 22.79). The eighth sentence of the text was the target and provided one of two targets,
depending on target condition (correct/incorrect). The final two sentences were identical among all
conditions, providing a conclusion to the topic. On average, the texts contained 121 words
(SD = 5.66) and 766 characters per text (SD = 37.63), across all four text versions.
Overall, the target sentences were equated for length: both correct (SD = 1.92) and incorrect
(SD = 1.90) targets contained on average nine words. When measured by number of characters
(including spaces and punctuation), both correct (SD = 10.51) and incorrect (SD = 10.42) targets
contained on average 60 characters. Half of the correct targets and incorrect targets included the
word “not” or “never” (e.g., “Jack the Ripper was never caught and punished for his crimes.”) and
half did not (e.g., “The Titanic withstood the damage from the iceberg collision.”).

Apparatus
Reading task
Participants read the texts on a computer screen. The texts were presented one sentence at a time,
and reading times were recorded when participants pressed a key to advance to the next sentence. To
implement a repeated measures design we used a Latin square to construct four lists, with each of the
 DISCOURSE PROCESSES 485

Table 1. Sample text with the four text versions (translated from Dutch original).
Background Knowledge
Target correct Target incorrect
[Introduction] [Introduction]
In 1865, a Frenchman named Laboulaye wished to In 1865, a Frenchman named Laboulaye wished to
honor democratic progress in the U.S. honor democratic progress in the U.S.
He conceptualized a giant sculpture along with artist He conceptualized a giant sculpture along with artist
Auguste Bartholdi. Auguste Bartholdi.
[Context Bias Correct] [Context Bias Incorrect]
Their ‘Statue of Liberty’ would require extensive Their ‘Statue of Liberty’ would require extensive
Target congruent with context

fundraising work. fundraising work.

They organized a public lottery to generate support for Raising the exorbitant funds for the statue proved an
the sculpture. enormous challenge.
American businessmen also contributed money to Because of financial difficulties France could not afford
build the statue’s base. to make a gift of the statue.
Despite falling behind schedule, the statue was Fundraising was arduous and plans quickly fell behind
completed. schedule.
The statue’s base was finished as well and ready for Because of these problems, completion of the statue
mounting. seemed doomed to failure.
[Target Correct] [Target Incorrect]
The Statue of Liberty was delivered from France to the The Statue of Liberty was not delivered from France to
United States. the United States.
[Coda] [Coda]
The intended site of the statue was a port in New York The intended site of the statue was a port in New York
harbor. harbor.
This location functioned as the first stop for many This location functioned as the first stop for many
Text

immigrants coming to the U.S immigrants coming to the U.S

[Introduction] [Introduction]
In 1865, a Frenchman named Laboulaye wished to In 1865, a Frenchman named Laboulaye wished to
honor democratic progress in the U.S. honor democratic progress in the U.S.
He conceptualized a giant sculpture along with artist He conceptualized a giant sculpture along with artist
Auguste Bartholdi. Auguste Bartholdi.
[Context Bias Incorrect] [Context Bias Correct]
Target incongruent with context

Their ‘Statue of Liberty’ would require extensive Their ‘Statue of Liberty’ would require extensive
fundraising work. fundraising work.
Raising the exorbitant funds for the statue proved an They organized a public lottery to generate support
enormous challenge. for the sculpture.
Because of financial difficulties France could not afford American businessmen also contributed money to
to make a gift of the statue. build the statue’s base.
Fundraising was arduous and plans quickly fell behind Despite falling behind schedule, the statue was
schedule. completed.
Because of these problems, completion of the statue The statue’s base was finished as well and ready for
seemed doomed to failure. mounting.
[Target Correct] [Target Incorrect]
The Statue of Liberty was delivered from France to the The Statue of Liberty was not delivered from France to
United States. the United States.
[Coda] [Coda]
The intended site of the statue was a port in New York The intended site of the statue was a port in New York
harbor. harbor.
This location functioned as the first stop for many This location functioned as the first stop for many
immigrants coming to the U.S immigrants coming to the U.S

80 texts appearing in a different version (as a function of text context, congruent with target vs.
incongruent with target, and target, correct vs. incorrect) on each list. Each participant received one
list, and hence read one version of each text. The texts were divided into two blocks of 40, and the
order in which they were presented was randomized. Participants received instructions at the start of
each block to focus them on either their background knowledge or the text. The order of the blocks
was counterbalanced; participants could either receive the focus on text instruction in the first block
and the focus on background instruction in the second block or vice versa. Focus on background
486 VAN MOORT ET AL.

knowledge was promoted by the instruction that they had to write down one thing they knew about
the topic before reading each text. Focus on the text was promoted by the instruction to think of a
short summary that reflects the content of the text best at the start of the block. After reading each
text participants had to write down their summary. Halfway through a block they were able to take a
short break. Each block of the experimental task was preceded by a short practice block of two texts
to familiarize participants with the task. The structure of the practice texts mirrored the structure of
the experimental items.

Measures
Working memory capacity
Working memory capacity was measured by means of the Swanson Sentence Span task (Swanson,
Cochran, & Ewers, 1989). In this task the experimenter reads out sets of sentences, with set
length varying from one to six sentences. At the end of each set a comprehension question is
asked about one of the sentences in the set. Participants have to remember the last word of each
sentence and recall these after answering the comprehension question. Demands on working
memory vary because sets consist of two, three, four, five, or six sentences, with two sets at each
working memory load. If participants successfully complete both tasks (recall of final words and
correctly answer the comprehension question) for at least one of the two sets at a particular load,
they advance to the next higher load. Participants earned 0.25 points for each correctly answered
comprehension question or correctly recalled set of words, and the sum of these points is the
index of working-memory capacity.

Reading skill
Although the sample in this study constituted of a relatively homogeneous group of skilled readers,
we used the scores for a modified cloze task (CBM Maze Task) to control for the influence of overall
reading proficiency (Deno, 1985; Espin & Foegen, 1996; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1992). In this task
participants read two texts. For each text every seventh word is deleted and replaced with three
options from which to choose. As participants proceed through the texts they choose the word that
best completes the text as they read. They are given 90 seconds to provide as many correct answers
as possible. Accuracy scores are averaged across the two texts.

Procedure
Participants were tested individually. First, they completed the experimental reading task.
Participants were asked to read each sentence at their own pace. They started with a practice
block, followed by one experimental block. After completing the first experimental block participants
could take a 5- to 7-minute break before they started the second experimental block (with a different
focus instruction). Halfway through each experimental block participants had the opportunity to
take a short break if needed. After they finished the experimental reading task they completed the
Swanson Sentence Span Task and the CBM Maze Task. The total duration of the experimental
procedure was approximately 90 minutes.

Design
In the current study the factors text (target congruent or incongruent with context), background
knowledge (target correct or incorrect), and focus (focus on text or background knowledge) varied as
within-participants. The factor text was defined as congruent or incongruent based on the combina-
tion of context and target sentence (e.g., context bias correct followed by a correct target sentence is
congruent and context bias correct followed by an incorrect target sentence is incongruent). The
factor background knowledge was defined as correct or incorrect with the readers’ background
 DISCOURSE PROCESSES 487

knowledge and the factor focus consisted of two levels (focus on text or focus on background
knowledge) depending on the instructions the participants received at the start of each block. The
variables reading ability and working memory capacity were between-subjects variables.

Results
To investigate whether the participants completed the tasks as instructed, we analyzed their
responses. Results for trials where participants had been instructed to focus on background knowl-
edge (by writing down one thing they already knew about the topic) show that they were proficient
in activating background knowledge: Participants responded with background information in 94% of
the trials. Likewise, analysis of participants’ summaries for the trials where they had been instructed
to focus on the text (by thinking of a summary and writing it down) revealed they completed the task
as requested: They responded in 99.74% of the trials with a summary, with an average summary
length of 133 characters (SD = 55).
To investigate the effects of our manipulations on the reading process, we analyzed the reading
times for four regions of interest: the pretarget (sentence preceding the target sentence), the target
sentence, the spill-over sentence (sentence following the target sentence), and the final sentence.
Sentence reading times that were extremely short (shorter than 300 ms) or extremely long (longer
than 10,000 ms) were excluded from the analyses, resulting in a loss of 1% of the data. Table 2
reports the means and standard deviations of the resulting data for reading times as a function of
focus (focus background knowledge/focus text), text (congruent/incongruent with target sentence),
background knowledge (correct/incorrect), and region (pretarget, target, spill-over and final).
First, we fitted a mixed-effects linear regression model to determine whether the experimental
manipulations and their interactions were significant factors in the each of the regions of interest.
Models were estimated with the R package LME4 version 1.1–12 (Bates, Maechler, Bolker, & Walker,
2015) and for all models Wald chi-square testing (Type II), as implemented in the R-package Car
(version 2.1–4; Fox & Weisberg, 2011), was applied to select the most parsimonious structure of
fixed effects by removing nonsignificant (p > .05) predictors. We considered the reading times (log
transformed to correct for right skewness) for all regions together, with the factors region, back-
ground knowledge, text, and focus and the interaction of these factors. The model also included the
maximal converging random structure for subjects and items. The model showed that the experi-
mental manipulations were significant factors in the regions of interest. The results of the Wald chi-
square tests revealed significant main effects of region (χ2(3) = 511.14, p < .001), focus (χ2
(1) = 514.43, p < .001), background knowledge (χ2(1) = 52.03, p < .001), and text (χ2(1) = 15.31,
p < .001) on the reading times. Moreover, both the interaction between region and text (χ2
(3) = 26.928, p < .001) and the interaction between region and background knowledge (χ2
(3) = 37.07, p < .001) were significant.

Table 2. Mean reading times and standard deviations (in ms) at the regions of interest (pretarget, target, spill-over, and final
sentence) for the experimental manipulations focus (focus on text or background knowledge), text (context consistent or
inconsistent with target sentence), and background knowledge (target sentence correct or incorrect).
Pretarget Target Spill-Over Final
Focus Text Background M SD M SD M SD M SD
Consistent Correct 2261 1289 1908 1043 2526 1743 2417 1497
Incorrect 2347 1292 2104 1187 2565 1417 2457 1755
Focus background Inconsistent Correct 2359 1278 2026 1087 2441 1371 2475 2173
knowledge
Incorrect 2348 1282 2276 1317 2702 1670 2491 1833
Consistent Correct 2581 1312 2093 1023 2783 1443 2619 1601
Focus text Incorrect 2589 1209 2373 1239 2989 1620 2668 1780
Inconsistent Correct 2548 1209 2317 1031 2837 1502 2634 1600
Incorrect 2539 1242 2626 1453 2937 1510 2811 2002
488 VAN MOORT ET AL.

To further investigate the effects of the experimental manipulations, we conducted mixed-effects linear
regression analyses for each region of interests separately. For each region of interest we started with a
model that included the fixed factors background knowledge (target correct/target incorrect), text (con-
gruent/incongruent), and focus (focus background knowledge/focus text) and the full interactional terms
for these factors. Participants and items were included as crossed random effects. Next, we included reading
ability and working memory capacity (both measures were median-centered) using a forward stepwise
selection procedure (Viebahn, Ernestus, & McQueen, 2012), comparing models with and without each
particular characteristic. Then we again selected the most parsimonious model as our final model. The final
model included the maximal participant and item random-effect structure that resulted in a converging
model (Barr, Levy, Scheepers, & Tily, 2013). For each region of interest we only report the final model.
Furthermore, because it is not clear how to determine the degrees of freedom for the t-statistics estimated
by the mixed models for continuous dependent variables (Baayen, 2008), we do not report degrees of
freedom and p values for the fixed estimates. Instead, statistical significance at approximately the .05 level is
indicated by values of the t-statistics ≥ 1.96 (see e.g., Schotter, Tran, & Rayner, 2014). We report both the
Wald tests and the estimates of the fixed effects for all models. Unless mentioned otherwise, we only discuss
effects that were significant (p < .05) in the Wald tests and the tests of the fixed estimates (t > 1.96 or t <
−1.96), and for reading ability and working memory capacity we only discuss significant interactions with
the fixed factors in our design (background knowledge, text, and focus).

Target sentence
Table 3 reports the results of the Wald tests as well as of the tests of the estimates of the fixed effects
of the final model for the log transformed reading times on the target sentence. The results revealed
significant main effects for both text (β = .08, SE = .01, t = 7.34) and background knowledge (β = .10,
SE = .02, t = 6.47). The reading times for incorrect (M = 2,345 ms) or incongruent targets
(M = 2,311 ms) were longer than the reading times for correct (M = 2,085 ms) or congruent targets
(M = 2,119 ms), both for inconsistencies with background knowledge and for incongruences with
prior text. Furthermore, we observed a main effect of focus (β = .15, SE = .04, t = 3.64): Participants
read more slowly when they focused on the text (M = 2,352 ms) than when they focused on their
background knowledge (M = 2,078 ms). In addition, there was a main effect of reading ability
(β = −.02, SE = .01, t = −4.37), with skilled readers reading faster than less skilled readers. Finally,
there was a significant interaction between working memory capacity and background knowledge

Table 3. Wald tests and estimates of fixed effects of the final model including maximum random slopes for the log transformed
reading times on the target sentence. The following R code was used: TZ.RT_Log ~ 1 + focus * working memory capacity + text +
background knowledge * working memory capacity + reading ability + (1 + focus + text + background | subject) + (1 + focus +
text + background | item).
Wald tests χ2 Df P
Focus 13.657 1 <0.001
Text 53.916 1 <0.001
Background 40.755 1 <0.001
Working memory 0.782 1 0.377
Reading ability 19.065 1 <0.001
Focus * working memory 1.050 1 0.305
Working memory * background 5.386 1 0.020
Estimates of the fixed effects B SE T
Intercept 7.421 0.045 165.56
Focus 0.148 0.041 3.64
Text 0.077 0.011 7.34
Background 0.098 0.015 6.47
Working memory −0.051 0.051 −1.01
Reading ability −0.019 0.004 −4.37
Focus * working memory 0.050 0.049 1.02
Working memory * background −0.029 0.012 −2.32
 DISCOURSE PROCESSES 489

(β = −.03, SE = .01, t = −2.32): Participants with a larger working memory capacity showed a smaller
inconsistency effect than did participants with a smaller working memory capacity.

Spill-over sentence
Table 4 reports the results of the Wald tests as well as of the tests of the estimates of the fixed effects
of the final model for the log transformed reading times on the spill-over sentence. For the reading
times of the spill-over region there was a main effect of background knowledge (β = .056, SE = .013,
t = 4.21), indicating a spill-over effect of background knowledge: When the preceding target sentence
was incorrect (M = 2,799 ms) participants were slower on the spill-over sentence than when the
preceding target sentence was correct (M = 2,647 ms). Furthermore, there was a main effect of focus
(β = .12, SE = .05, t = 2.74): When participants focused on the text (M = 2,886 ms) they read more
slowly than when they focused on background knowledge (M = 2,558 ms). Finally, there was an
interaction of reading ability and working memory capacity (β = −.02, SE = .01, t = −2.23). However,
because this interaction was of secondary interest and, moreover, not reliable in the Wald tests (χ2
(1) = 1.71, p = .19), we refrain from further discussing this result.
Taken together, the results show a main effect of background knowledge on both target and
spill-over sentences, with participants reading both target and spill-over sentences more slowly
when the target sentence was incorrect. For the target sentence this effect depended on parti-
cipants’ working memory capacity as indicated by a significant interaction: Participants with a
larger working memory capacity showed a smaller inconsistency effect than did participants with
a smaller working memory capacity. With respect to the congruency of target and context, a
main effect of text was observed for the target sentence but not the spill-over sentence:
Participants were slower to read target sentences that were incongruent with the preceding
text than target sentences that were congruent. On both the target and spill-over sentences we
found a main effect of focus, indicating that participants were generally slower when they were
instructed to focus on the text. We did not find any interaction effects between text and
background knowledge on the target or the spill-over sentence.

Table 4. Wald tests and estimates of fixed effects of the final model including maximum random slopes for the log transformed
reading times on the spill-over sentence. The following R code was used: Z9.RT_Log ~ 1 + focus × reading ability *; working
memory capacity + background + (1 + focus *; background |subject) + (1 + focus * background |item).
Wald tests χ2 Df P
Focus 11.60 1 <0.001
Reading ability 18.15 1 <0.001
Working memory 0.93 1 0.334
Background 17.76 1 <0.001
Focus * reading ability 1.71 1 0.191
Focus * working memory 0.10 1 0.754
Reading ability * working memory 1.70 1 0.192
Focus * reading ability * working memory 3.26 1 0.071
Estimates of the fixed effects B SE T
Intercept 7.704 0.051 150.56
Focus 0.123 0.045 2.74
Reading ability −0.012 0.008 −1.36
Working memory −0.032 0.060 −0.54
Background 0.056 0.013 4.21
Focus * reading ability −0.010 0.008 −1.32
Focus * working memory 0.005 0.055 0.09
Reading ability * working memory −0.021 0.009 −2.23
Focus * reading ability * working memory 0.016 0.009 1.81
490 VAN MOORT ET AL.

Table 5. Wald tests and estimates of fixed effects for the final model including maximum random slopes for the log transformed
reading times on the pre-critical sentence. The following R code was used: Z7.RT_Log ~ 1 + focus × reading ability * working
memory capacity + (1 + focus | subject) + (1 + focus | item).
Wald tests χ2 Df P
Focus 10.999 1 <0.001
Reading ability 17.178 1 <0.001
Working memory 0.005 1 0.942
Focus * reading ability 1.413 1 0.235
Focus * working memory 2.131 1 0.144
Reading ability * working memory 0.565 1 0.452
Focus * reading ability * working memory 2.789 1 0.095
Estimated of the fixed effects B SE T
Intercept 7.642 0.050 152.10
Focus 0.107 0.041 2.62
Reading ability −0.015 0.008 −1.74
Working memory −0.050 0.059 −0.85
Focus * reading ability −0.009 0.007 −1.20
Focus * working memory 0.063 0.051 1.24
Reading ability * working memory −0.017 0.009 −1.76
Focus * reading ability * working memory 0.013 0.008 1.67

Precritical sentence and final sentence

Tables 5 and 6 report the results of the Wald tests as well as of the tests of the estimates of the fixed
effects of the final model for the log transformed reading times on the precritical sentence (Table 4)
and the final sentence (Table 5). Both models include maximum random slopes. We found a main
effect of focus on both the precritical sentence (β = .11, SE = .04, t = 2.62) and the final sentence
(β = .09, SE = .04, t = 2.16): When participants were focused on the text (precritical: M = 2,546 ms,
final: M = 2,683 ms) they read more slowly than when they were focused on background knowledge
(precritical: M = 2,307 ms, final: M = 2,460 ms) for both sentences. Also, the main effect of reading
ability was significant in the Wald tests for both the precritical (χ2(1) = 17.18, p < .001) and the final
sentences (χ2(1) = 16.54, p < .001), indicating that a higher reading ability was associated with faster
reading times. However, the estimate of the fixed effect for the predictor reading ability did not reach
significance for both the precritical (β = −.02, SE = .01, t = −1.74) and the final sentence (β = −.01,
SE = .01, t = −1.47), indicating that the results for this predictor have to be interpreted with caution.

Table 6. Wald tests and estimates of fixed effects for the final model including maximum random slopes for the log transformed
reading times on the final sentence. The following R code was used: Z10.RT_Log ~ 1 + focus * reading ability * working memory
capacity + (1 + focus |subject) + (1 + focus |item).
Wald tests χ2 Df P
Focus 7.481 1 0.006
Reading ability 16.535 1 <0.001
Working memory 0.4532 1 0.465
Focus * reading ability 1.452 1 0.228
Focus * working memory 0.193 1 0.660
Reading ability * working memory 1.742 1 0.187
Focus * reading ability * working memory 2.265 1 0.132
Estimates of the fixed effects B SE T
Intercept 7.665 0.053 144.19
Focus 0.094 0.043 2.16
Reading ability −0.013 0.009 −1.47
Working memory −0.033 0.062 −0.54
Focus * reading ability −0.009 0.008 −1.22
Focus * working memory 0.014 0.054 0.25
Reading ability * working memory −0.019 0.010 −2.00
Focus * reading ability * working memory 0.013 0.009 1.50
 DISCOURSE PROCESSES 491

There were no effects of source (background knowledge or text) on the reading times for either
region. Thus, we did not find any effects of the text and background knowledge manipulations on
the pretarget or the final sentence, indicating that the manipulations did not have an effect before the
presentation of the target sentence and that the spill-over effect of background knowledge was no
longer present on the final sentence.

Discussion
In the present study we aimed to contrast validation against background knowledge (knowledge-
based monitoring) and validation against prior text (text-based monitoring) to investigate their
unique influences on processing. Additionally, we wanted to shed light on whether validation is a
passive or a reader-initiated process and elucidate the possible role of working memory. First, in line
with previous studies, participants took longer to read both the inconsistent and the incongruent
targets (e.g., Albrecht & O’Brien, 1993; O’Brien et al., 1998; Rapp, 2008). Both prior text and
background knowledge influenced readers’ moment-by-moment processing: Both types of incon-
sistencies elicited an effect on the target sentence. However, only inconsistencies with background
knowledge elicited a spill-over effect on the next sentence. Thus, it seems that text-based monitoring
and knowledge-based monitoring show distinct time courses, which suggests processing differences.
Second, we investigated whether validation is a passive or reader-initiated process by considering
both the influence of the task and the role of working memory. We examined the influence of the
task by manipulating the focus of the readers by instructing them to focus on either their back-
ground knowledge or the text. The task influenced the reading process of the text as a whole (i.e., a
main effect of focus: Readers were slower when instructed to focus on the text than when they were
instructed to focus on background knowledge) but did not influence the validation process (i.e.,
there was no interaction between reading focus and inconsistency). Furthermore, we investigated the
role of working memory in validation and observed that working memory influences processing of
inconsistencies with background knowledge but not processing of inconsistencies with prior text.
The results show that both background knowledge and prior text have an influence on readers’
moment-by-moment processing. Moreover, they suggest distinct time courses for validation against
background knowledge and prior text, because only inconsistencies with background knowledge elicit a
spill-over effect. Similar results have been found by Rapp (2008) in a series of experiments where he used
texts with familiar or unfamiliar topics to make the readers’ prior knowledge relevant or irrelevant. In
two of these experiments he used familiar topics and in the third experiment unfamiliar topics, thereby
minimizing—but not eliminating—the influence of background knowledge. Rapp found that minimiz-
ing the influence of background knowledge (more text-based monitoring) resulted in main effects of the
inconsistencies only on the targets but no spill-over effects. In contrast, when prior knowledge was made
relevant (more knowledge-based monitoring), he did observe spill-over effects. Although the aim of this
study was not to compare the two types of monitoring, the pattern of spill-over effects when knowledge-
based monitoring was important and no spill-over effects for text-based monitoring can be interpreted in
light of the current study. In our study we made a direct comparison between the two types within a
single design to investigate their differences. The results showed that indeed text-based and knowledge-
based monitoring have different time courses and that inconsistencies with background knowledge seem
to have a different -and perhaps larger- impact on processing than those with prior text.
There are several possible explanations for the time-course differences between text-based and
knowledge-based monitoring. First, the time course differences may reflect differences in the possible
repair processes that follow the validation process. It could be that the repair processes are different for
inconsistencies with background knowledge than for inconsistencies with prior text. For example, if it is
more difficult to repair an inconsistency with the more extensive background knowledge than one with a
text representation, then this would lead to the observed longer reading times.
Second, the differences may be related to how easily relevant information for validation is
accessed and activated. Earlier two-stage models of comprehension (Kintsch, 1988, 1998; Long &
492 VAN MOORT ET AL.

Lea, 2005; Rizzella & O’Brien, 1996, 2002; Sanford & Garrod, 1989) assume that comprehension
consists of two stages: activation and integration. More recent models, such as the RI-Val model of
reading (Cook & O’Brien, 2014; O’Brien & Cook, 2016), have included validation as an additional
stage of comprehension. All aforementioned models assume that information needs to be activated
before it can be integrated or validated. Relevant concepts are activated through spread of activation
(e.g., Anderson, 1983): A passive and unrestricted process that continues until the system reaches an
equilibrium (Kintsch, 1988). Presumably, the memory representation of background knowledge
consists of a much larger and therefore richer network of possibly relevant concepts (especially for
well-known topics) than the memory representation of the text (especially for relatively short texts).
Because the memory representation of background knowledge consists of a much larger and richer
network, it may be that the onset of knowledge-based validation is later because it takes longer for
the system to reach an equilibrium during the activation and integration stages, resulting in spill-
over effects for inconsistencies with background knowledge.
A third, related, possibility is that the time course differences are caused by differences in the
duration of the validation processes. Because the memory representation of background knowledge
consist of a larger and richer network, it seems likely that after the initial activation and integration
stages more concepts are available as input for the validation process than for the memory
representation of the text. Validation may take longer because there simply are more possible
concepts against which the new information has to be validated, thus causing knowledge-based
validation to take longer.
Common to these three explanations for the time-course differences between knowledge- and text-
based monitoring is that the former requires more processing resources than the latter, either because the
repair process are more demanding or because the amount of information that needs to be validated is
larger. This interpretation of the results is supported by the observation that working memory capacity
only played a role when readers validated inconsistencies with background knowledge. Interestingly, a
larger working memory capacity decreased, but did not eliminate, the inconsistency effect for the target
sentences. Although a smaller inconsistency effect could be taken to reflect less or even inferior
validation, this interpretation seems unlikely in the current situation assuming that high working
capacity readers are proficient validators. Hence, a more plausible explanation of the attenuation of
the inconsistency effect for high working memory capacity readers is that they either validated the
inconsistent information more quickly or that they repaired their mental representation more efficiently.
Furthermore, our observation that working memory capacity only played a role on the target sentence
and not on the spill-over sentence could indicate that its influence occurs relatively early during
processing (i.e., when readers integrate and validate the information) rather than at later processing
(i.e., repair processes that follow validation). However, given the temporal resolution of the current
design, this account is speculative. Thus, although we can conclude that working memory capacity affects
the processing of inconsistencies with background knowledge, more research is needed to clarify its
specific role in validation and repair processes.
Whether validation is a passive or reader-initiated process remains an open question. Evidence
for a passive account of validation is the finding that although the focus manipulation successfully
altered the reading process as a whole (i.e., a main effect of focus), it did not influence the validation
process (i.e., no interaction between focus and the type of inconsistency). This suggests that the
validation process is not influenced by reading task and thus is a passive process, which would be in
line with previous studies (e.g., Hagoort & Van Berkum, 2007; Isberner & Richter, 2013; Richter
et al., 2009; Singer, 2006, 2013). Of course, one should be cautious interpreting this null effect: It also
is possible that the specific reading tasks used in the present study were unable to influence the
validation process. Evidence for a reader-initiated account of validation comes from the finding that
working memory plays a role in the processing of inconsistencies with background knowledge but
not prior text, This suggests that validation, at least against background knowledge, is not entirely
effortless and thus not entirely passive.
 DISCOURSE PROCESSES 493

The interpretation of these results depends on how one conceptualizes passive and reader-
initiated processes. Passive processes generally are conceptualized as outside the reader’s con-
scious control, nonselective, and unrestricted in the kind of information they return (e.g.,
Anderson, 1983; McKoon & Ratcliff, 1992; Myers & O’Brien, 1998; O’Brien & Myers, 1999),
whereas reader-initiated processes are conceptualized as requiring control and attentional
resources. Based on this view our results create a complicated picture, because on the one
hand validation was not influenced by the reading task, but on the other hand validation against
background knowledge did require cognitive resources (i.e., working memory capacity). These
seemingly contradictory findings may be reconciled by a more refined conceptualization, namely
that validation consists of subcomponents that operate at different levels of processing (more
passive or more reader-initiated). This interpretation would be in line with the suggestion that
reader-initiated processes lie on a continuum reflecting the degree to which they are constrained
by the text, ranging from processes that are close to the actual text itself (almost passive) to
processes that go well beyond the information in the text (more interpretive) (Van Den Broek &
Helder, 2017). If processes indeed range on such a continuum our task manipulation would tap
into a relatively high level of reader-initiated processes, whereas the interaction between working
memory and knowledge-based monitoring would tap into processes closer to the text itself (and
thus closer to passive). The fact that we did not find an effect of focus but did find an interaction
with working memory capacity could mean that validation, at least against background knowl-
edge, indeed is a reader-initiated process but at a lower level on this continuum. Future research
could try to determine whether there indeed is a continuum of reader-initiated processes and, if
so, where exactly on this continuum the process of validation lies and whether this is the same
for text-based and knowledge-based monitoring.
In summary, we have shown that both prior text and background knowledge have a unique
influence on processing and that the processing of inconsistencies against these two sources follow
different time courses and therefore may involve different mechanisms. The current study has taken
a first step in elucidating the processing differences between text-based and knowledge-based
monitoring. Future studies should examine why these processes differ and what exactly the differ-
ences are. Another future challenge is to design experiments that allow us to pinpoint exactly when
the various component processes of validation start and finish by using more fine-grained measures
to obtain better insight in their time course. Our results suggest that validation could occur at
different levels of processing and perhaps draw on different mixes of passive and reader-initiated
processes, but they call into question whether validation categorically can be described as passive or
reader-initiated. Furthermore, the results show that working memory plays a role, in particular in the
processing of inconsistencies with background knowledge. This is a first step to elucidate the possible
role of working memory in comprehension monitoring and validation. An interesting research
avenue would be to determine the conditions under which working memory does or does not
play a role, for example by varying the demands a task places on working memory and determine
whether and, if so, how this influences the processing of different types of inconsistencies.
The current results contribute to our understanding of monitoring processes during reading and
how different sources of information, such as text or background knowledge, can influence this
process. Many theoretical models of reading comprehension (e.g., Albrecht & O’Brien, 1993; Gerrig
& McKoon, 1998; Gerrig & O’Brien, 2005; Johnson-Laird, 1983; McKoon & Ratcliff, 1998; O’Brien &
Albrecht, 1992; Van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983) make a distinction in the origin (i.e., the text or
background knowledge) of information that is included in a mental representation. The current
study shows that a similar distinction can be made with respect to the origin of information, text or
background knowledge, against which incoming information is validated during reading.

Acknowledgment
We thank Nina Kratina and Danielle Schouten for their assistance in data collection.
ORCID
Marianne L. van Moort http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1746-0869
494 VAN MOORT ET AL.

References
Albrecht, J. E., & O’Brien, E. J. (1993). Updating a mental model: maintaining both local and global coherence. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1061–1070.
Anderson, J. R. (1983). A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22,
261–295.
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing:
Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68.
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of
Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.
Colbert-Getz, J., & Cook, A. E. (2013). Revisiting effects of contextual strength on the subordinate bias effect: Evidence
from eye movements. Memory & Cognition, 41, 1172–1184.
Cook, A. E., Halleran, J. G., & O’Brien, E. J. (1998). What is readily available during reading? A memory-based view of
text processing. Discourse Processes, 26, 109–129.
Cook, A. E., & Myers, J. L. (2004). Processing discourse roles in scripted narratives: The influences of context and
world knowledge. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 268–288.
Cook, A. E., & O’Brien, E. J. (2014). Knowledge activation, integration, and validation during narrative text
comprehension. Discourse Processes, 51, 26–49.
Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Journal of Exceptional Children, 52,
219–232.
Eslick, A. N., Fazio, L. K., & Marsh, E. J. (2011). Ironic effects of drawing attention to story errors. Memory, 19, 184–
191.
Espin, C. A., & Foegen, A. (1996). Validity of general outcome measures for predicting secondary students' perfor-
mance on content-area tasks. Exceptional Children, 62, 497-514.
Fazio, L. K., Barber, S. J., Rajaram, S., Ornstein, P. A., & Marsh, E. J. (2013). Creating illusions of knowledge: Learning
errors that contradict prior knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 1–5.
Fazio, L. K., & Marsh, E. J. (2008a). Older, not younger, children learn more false facts from stories. Cognition, 106,
1081–1089.
Fazio, L. K., & Marsh, E. J. (2008b). Slowing presentation speed increases illusions of knowledge. Psychonomic Bulletin
& Review, 15, 180–185.
Fletcher, C. R., & Bloom, C. P. (1988). Causal reasoning in the comprehension of simple narrative texts. Journal of
Memory and Language, 27, 235-244.
Fox, J., & Weisberg, S. (2011). An {R} companion to applied regression (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
Fuchs, L. S., & F, D. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring student reading progress. School Psychology Review,
21, 45–58.
Gerrig, R. J., & McKoon, G. (1998). The readiness is all: The functionality of memory-based text processing. Discourse
Processes, 26, 67–86.
Gerrig, R. J., & O’Brien, E. J. (2005). The scope of memory-based processing. Discourse Processes, 39, 225–242.
Gerrig, R. J., & Prentice, D. A. (1991). The representation of fictional information. Psychological Science, 2, 336–340.
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension.
Psychological Review, 101, 371–395.
Hagoort, P., Hald, L., Bastiaansen, M., & Petersson, K. M. (2004). Integration of word meaning and world knowledge
in language comprehension. Science, 304, 438.
Hagoort, P., & Van Berkum, J. (2007). Beyond the sentence given. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences, 362, 801–811.
Hannon, B., & Daneman, M. (2001). Susceptibility to semantic illusions: An individual-differences perspective.
Memory and Cognition, 29, 449–461.
Isberner, M.-B., & Richter, T. (2013). Can readers ignore implausibility? Evidence for nonstrategic monitoring of
event-based plausibility in language comprehension. Acta Psychologica, 142, 15–22.
Isberner, M.-B., & Richter, T. (2014). Comprehension and validation: Separable stages of information processsing? A
case for epistemic monitoring in language. In D. N. Rapp & J. L. G. Braasch (Eds.), Processing Inaccurate
Information (pp. 245–276). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model.
Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review,
85, 363–394.
 DISCOURSE PROCESSES 495

Leinenger, M., & Rayner, K. (2013). Eye movements while reading biased homographs: Effects of prior encounter and
biasing context on reducing the subordinate bias effect. Journal of Cognitive Psychology (Hove, England), 25, 665–
681.
Long, D. L., & Lea, R. B. (2005). Have we been searching for meaning in all the wrong places? Defining the “search
after meaning” principle in comprehension. Discourse Processes, 39, 279–298.
Marsh, E. J., & Fazio, L. K. (2006). Learning errors from fiction: Difficulties in reducing reliance on fictional stories.
Memory & Cognition, 34, 1140–1149.
Marsh, E. J., Meade, M. L., & Roediger Iii, H. L. (2003). Learning facts from fiction. Journal of Memory and Language,
49, 519–536.
McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99, 440-466.
McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1998). Memory-based language processing: Psycholinguistic research in the 1990s. Annual
Review of Psychology, 49, 25–42.
McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. P. (2009). Towards a comprehensive model of comprehension. In B. Ross (Ed.), The
psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 51, pp. 284–297). New York, NY: Elsevier.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing
information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.
Myers, J. L., Cook, A. E., Kambe, G., Mason, R. A., & O’Brien, E. J. (2000). Semantic and episodic effects on bridging
inferences. Discourse Processes, 29, 179–199.
Myers, J. L., & O’Brien, E. J. (1998). Accessing the discourse representation during reading. Discourse Processes, 26,
131–157.
Nieuwland, M. S., & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2006). When peanuts fall in love: N400 evidence for the power of discourse.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1098–1111.
O’Brien, E. J. (1987). Antecedent search processes and the structure of text. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 278–290.
O’Brien, E. J., & Albrecht, J. E. (1991). The role of context in accessing antecedents in text. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 94–102.
O’Brien, E. J., & Albrecht, J. E. (1992). Comprehension strategies in the development of a mental model. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 777–784.
O’Brien, E. J., Albrecht, J. E., Hakala, C. M., & Rizzella, M. L. (1995). Activation and suppression of antecedents during
reinstatement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 626–634.
O’Brien, E. J., & Cook, A. E. (2016). Coherence threshold and the continuity of processing: The RI-val model of
comprehension. Discourse Processes, 53, 326–338.
O’Brien, E. J., Cook, A. E., & Guéraud, S. (2010). Accessibility of outdated information. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 979–991.
O’Brien, E. J., Cook, A. E., & Peracchi, K. A. (2004). Updating situation models: Reply to Zwaan and Madden (2004).
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 289–291.
O’Brien, E. J., & Myers, J. L. (1999). Text comprehension: A view from the bottom up. In S. R. Goldman, A. C.
Graesser, & P. W. Van Den Broek (Eds.), narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom
Trabasso (pp. 35–53). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
O’Brien, E. J., Plewes, P. S., & Albrecht, J. E. (1990). Antecedent retrieval processes. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 241–249.
O’Brien, E. J., Rizzella, M. L., Albrecht, J. E., & Halleran, J. G. (1998). Updating a situation model: A memory-based
text processing view. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1200.
Rapp, D. N. (2008). How do readers handle incorrect information during reading? Memory & Cognition, 36, 688–701.
Rapp, D. N., & Braasch, J. L. G. (2014). Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from
cognitive science and the educational sciences. (D. N. Rapp & J. L. G. Braasch, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rapp, D. N., Gerrig, R. J., & Prentice, D. A. (2001). Readers’ trait-based models of characters in narrative comprehen-
sion. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 737–750.
Richter, T., & Rapp, D. N. (2014). Comprehension and validation of text information: Introduction to the special issue.
Discourse Processes, 51, 1–6.
Richter, T., Schroeder, S., & Wöhrmann, B. (2009). You don’t have to believe everything you read: Background knowledge
permits fast and efficient validation of information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 538–558.
Rizzella, M. L., & O’Brien, E. J. (1996). Accessing global causes during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1208.
Rizzella, M. L., & O’Brien, E. J. (2002). Retrieval of concepts in script-based texts and narratives: The influence of
general world knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 780–790.
Sanford, A., & Garrod, S. (1989). What, when, and how?: Questions of immediacy in anaphoric reference resolution.
Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, SI235–SI262.
Schotter, E. R., Tran, R., & Rayner, K. (2014). Don’t believe what you read (only once): Comprehension is supported
by regressions during reading. Psychological Science, 25, 1218–1226.
496 VAN MOORT ET AL.

Simon, H. A. (1974). How Big Is a Chunk?: By combining data from several experiments, a basic human memory unit
can be identified and measured. Science, 183, 482–488.
Singer, M. (2006). Verification of text ideas during reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 574–591.
Singer, M. (2013). Validation in reading comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 361–366.
Singer, M., & Halldorson, M. (1996). Constructing and validating motive bridging inferences. Cognitive Psychology, 30,
1-38.
Singer, M., Halldorson, M., Lear, J. C., & Andrusiak, P. (1992). Validation of causal bridging inferences. Journal of
Memory and Language, 31, 507-524.
Swanson, H. L., Cochran, K. F., & Ewers, C. A. (1989). Working memory in skilled and less skilled readers. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 17, 145–156.
Trabasso, T., Secco, T., & Van Den Broek, P. (1984). Causal cohesion and story coherence. In H. Mandl, N. L. Stein, &
T. Trabasso (Eds.), Learning and Comprehension of Text (pp. 83–111). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Van Den Broek, P. (2010). Using texts in science education: Cognitive processes and knowledge representation.
Science, 328, 453–456.
Van Den Broek, P., & Helder, A. (2017). Cognitive processes in discourse comprehension: Passive processes, reader-
initiated processes, and evolving mental representations. Discourse Processes, 54, 1–13.
Van Den Broek, P., & Kendeou, P. (2008). Cognitive processes in comprehension of science texts: The role of co-
activation in confronting misconceptions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 335–351.
Van Den Broek, P., Young, P. M., Tzeng, Y., & Linderholm, T. (1999). The landscape model of reading. In H. Van
Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 71–98).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Viebahn, M. C., Ernestus, M., & McQueen, J. M. (2012). Co-occurrence of reduced word forms in natural speech. Paper
presented at the 13th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, Stuttgart,
Germany.
Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological
Bulletin, 123, 162–185.