Table 2.
Studies on the discourse inferences that were included in the meta-analysis.
| References | Scanning method | Template | N | Stimuli presentation | Response | Number of peaks | Contrast of interest |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chow et al. (2008) | fMRI | Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) | 15 | Visual | Button press (1 out of 2) | 5 | Predictive reading > Normal reading |
| Ferstl and von Cramon (2001) | fMRI | Talairach | 12 | Visual | Button press (1 out of 2) | 2 | Coherence > Incoherence |
| Ferstl and von Cramon (2002) | fMRI | Talairach | 9 | Auditory | Button press (1 out of 2) | 12+5 a | Logic coherence > Logic incoherence |
| Fletcher et al. (1995) | PET | Talairach | 6 | Visual | No response b | 5 | 1. Mental state stories > Unlinked sentences |
| 4 | 2. Physical stories > Unlinked sentences | ||||||
| Friese et al. (2008) | fMRI | MNI | 13 | Visual | Button press (1 out of 2) | 1 | Inference > Paraphrase |
| Jin et al. (2009) | fMRI | Talairach | 15 | Visual | No response | 2 | Predictive > Non-predictive Control |
| Kim et al. (2012) | PET | Talairach | 10 | Visual | Button press (1 out of 2) | 6 | 1. Strong coherence > Control |
| 4 | 2. Weak coherence > Control | ||||||
| Kranjec et al. (2012) | fMRI | Talairach | 18 | Visual | Button press (1 out of 2) | 14 | Causality > Space and Time |
| Kuperberg et al. (2006) | fMRI | Talairach | 15 | Visual | Button press (1 out of 3) | 8 | Intermediately related > Highly related |
| 7 | Intermediately related > Unrelated | ||||||
| Mason and Just (2011) | fMRI | MNI | 10 | Visual | Button press (1 out of 2) | 17 | 1. Intentional inference > Control (sentence 2) |
| 1 | 2. Physical Inference > Control (sentence 2) | ||||||
| 5 | 3. Intentional inference > Control (sentence 3) | ||||||
| Monti et al. (2009) | fMRI | MNI | 15 | Visual | Button press (1 out of 2) | 44 | Inference > Grammar for linguistic arguments |
| Prado et al. (2015) | fMRI | MNI | 20 | Visual | Button press (1 out of 2) | 8 | Disjunctive stories > Control |
| Prat et al. (2011) | fMRI | MNI | 18 | Visual | Button press (1 out of 2) | 18 | Coherent > Incoherent |
| Robertson et al. (2000) | fMRI | Talairach | 8 | Visual | No response | 2 | More coherent > Less coherent |
| Siebörger et al. (2007) | fMRI | Talairach | 14 | Auditory | Button press (1 out of 4) | 9 | 1. Distantly related > Unrelated |
| 1 | 2. Distantly related > Closely related | ||||||
| Virtue et al. (2006) | fMRI | Talairach | 17 | Auditory | No response | 2 | 1. Implied > Explicit (verb point) |
| 2 | 2. Implied > Explicit (coherence break) | ||||||
| Virtue et al. (2008) | fMRI | Talairach | 19 | Auditory | No response | 6 | Predictable > Explicit |
| Xu et al. (2005) | fMRI | MNI | 22 | Visual | No response | 17 | Coherent narratives > Unconnected sentences |
| Yarkoni et al. (2008) | fMRI | Talairach | 29 | Visual | No response | 10 | Story > Scrambled |
N, number of participants.
a
Ferstl and von Cramon (2002) additionally reported five foci in the extent of activations in medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC).
b
In the experiments marked “No response,” the participants did not respond right after stimulus presentation, but may provide delayed response after finishing a block or the scanning.