Distinct ERP signatures for singular "they" and gender violations.

Overview

1. School of Cognitive Science, Hampshire College, Amherst, MA, United States
2. Department of Psychology, Providence College, Providence, RI, United States
3. Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, United States
4. Department of Cognitive Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States
5. Department of Computer Science, Colgate University, Hamilton, New York, NY, United States

Abstract

Introduction: The English pronoun system is undergoing rapid change, with singular “they” increasingly used to refer to specific individuals. A key question is how this innovative usage is processed online, particularly when paired with gendered antecedents. The critical issue is whether singular “they” incurs processing costs similar to canonical gender mismatches or instead engages a distinct interpretive profile that avoids the neural signatures typically elicited by incongruent uses of “he” and “she”.

Methods: We addressed this question using event-related potentials (ERPs) in readers with high familiarity with singular “they”. Participants listened to sentences containing reflexive pronouns whose antecedents varied in gender specificity (gendered vs. non-gendered) and referential status (referential vs. bound-variable).

Results: Across both the P600 (500–800 ms) and N400/Nref (300–500 ms) time windows, gender-incongruent reflexives elicited robust neural signatures of processing difficulty that depended on antecedent type. Referential mismatches with proper names (e.g., “John…herself”) produced frontal negativities consistent with referential integration difficulty, whereas bound-variable mismatches with quantified antecedents (e.g., “every woman…himself”) elicited large P600 effects characteristic of morphosyntactic repair. In contrast, singular “themselves” patterned differently from these gender mismatch responses in gendered antecedent contexts. In referential contexts, the N400/Nref response to singular “themselves” was intermediate between those for gender-congruent and gender-incongruent forms, consistent with a gradient of predictability. In bound-variable contexts, singular “themselves” patterned closely with gender-congruent reflexives, showing no evidence of a violation response.

Discussion: These findings suggest that, for speakers with substantial exposure, singular “themselves” does not behave like a canonical agreement mismatch, even in contexts that strongly penalize gender-incongruent forms. This pattern counters the intuition that gender-neutral reflexives necessarily impose a processing cost when paired with gendered antecedents.

Reproduced under the paper's license (CC BY), from the paper cited above.

Code

The paper links to its data, not to its authors' code: see the Data section.

Tracing map

A tracing map links a paper to the code its authors published: this paper has none, so it has no map.

Data

Datasets cited

• osf:2vjyp, at OSF; found in “Data availability statement”

Data availability statement

The datasets presented in this study can be found in online repositories. The names of the repository/repositories and accession number(s) can be found below: The datasets analysed for this study are publicly available on OSF at https://osf.io/2vjyp/.

Reproduced under the paper's license (CC BY), from the paper cited above.

Versions

The history of this record: each version stored by the harvester or made by a correction of its authors or of the maintainers of its code, and what changed in its facts. The texts of the paper (its abstract, its availability statements) are not part of it; versions that changed only those are not listed.

Version 1, 30 September 2026: the first record

Recorded: type, language, journal, volume, pages, dates, 3 authors, 7 keywords, 39 references.

Cite

This paper

Morris, J., Snedeker, J., & Prasad, G. (2026). Distinct ERP signatures for singular "they" and gender violations. Frontiers in psychology, 17, 1797415. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1797415

Similar papers

The papers with a page that share the most with this one: the tools found in their code, their categories, datasets, cited references and authors, the rarest counting most.

[1] doi:10.1162/nol.a.264 [code]

The Temporal Dynamics of the Labeling Algorithm During Natural Language Comprehension: Neural Evidence for Phrase Grammatical Type Generation.

Journal: Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.)

In common: EEG, 5 references

[2] doi:10.1016/j.isci.2026.117159

Ultraslow brain dynamics as neurophysiological markers of information sampling during learning.

Journal: iScience

In common: EEG, cognitive, 3 references

[3] doi:10.3758/s13415-026-01427-z

ERP effects at encoding: Image memorability or recognition success?

Journal: Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience

In common: EEG, cognitive, 3 references

[4] doi:10.1007/s11357-026-02255-2

Map-based spatial perspective taking reveals frontal late negativity loss and posterior delta gain in mild cognitive impairment.

Journal: GeroScience

In common: EEG, cognitive, 3 references

[5] doi:10.3758/s13415-026-01442-0 [code]

Empathy for pain persists across live two-way video interactions and viewing of prerecorded videos.

Journal: Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience

In common: EEG, cognitive, 3 references

[6] doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0353990 [code]

Positive mood enhances accessibility of unrelated concepts in the first language but not in the foreign language.

Journal: PloS one

In common: EEG, cognitive, 3 references

[7] doi:10.7554/elife.103566 [code]

Effort produces after-effects costly for others but valued for self.

Journal: eLife

In common: EEG, 3 references

[8] doi:10.1038/s41598-026-50946-9 [code]

Fixation-related potentials reveal that confusing program code elicits a late frontal positivity.

Journal: Scientific reports

In common: EEG, 2 references

[9] doi:10.1038/s41598-026-47973-x

Neural and behavioral signatures of error monitoring are differentially modulated by social hierarchy and trial type.

Journal: Scientific reports

In common: EEG, 3 references

[10] doi:10.3758/s13415-026-01450-0 [code]

Attentional processing in individual anxiety: Electrocortical correlates of threat- and safety-related declarative memory formation.

Journal: Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience

In common: EEG, cognitive, 2 references

Contribute

The authors of this paper can claim it, correct its record and validate its tracing map, and the maintainers of its code (its owner, or a public member of its organization) correct what it says of their repository; anyone signed in can ask for its removal. Every request goes to OSCR's own machine, which answers it; your account page follows them.

Request its removal

To ask OSCR to remove this record, the copies of its authors' scripts or its tracing map, use the removal request page: signed in, you say who you are, what to remove and why, then review and confirm the request. Published rules decide every request (how).

Discussion: questions and error reports about this paper and its code, from signed-in readers and its authors. It opens with sign-in.

Reproductions: reports from readers who ran the authors' code: what they reproduced, with which environment, commit and data. It opens with sign-in.

Activity: what happens around this paper: new versions of its record, its map's validation, discussions and reproductions. It opens with sign-in.