ERPs and Domain Specificity: Beating a Straw Horse

Language and Cognitive Processes

Volumn 13, Issue 6, 1998, Pages 653-672

  Coulson, Seana ^a,c   King, Jonathan W ^b   Kutas, Marta ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c University of Arizona   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0032281606     PISSN: 01690965     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/016909698386410     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Ainsworth-Darnell, K., Shulman, H.G., Boland, J.E. (1998). Dissociating brain responses to syntactic and semantic anomalies: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 112-130.
2. Bates, E., & Goodman, J. (1997). On the inseparability of grammar and the lexicon: Evidednce from acquisition, aphasia, and real-time processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 507-584.
3. Besson, M., & Macar, F. (1987). An event-related potential analysis of incongruity in music and other non-linguistic contexts. Psychophysiology, 24, 14-25.
4. Bresnan, J. (1982). The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5. Brill, E., & Mooney, R.J. (1997). An overview of empirical natural language processing. AI Magazine, 18, 13-24.
6. Cohen, J. (1969). Very slow brain potentials relating to expectancy: The CNV. In E. Donchina and D. Lindsley (Eds), Average evoked potentials: Methods, results and evaluations. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
7. Coulson, S., King J., & Kutas, M. (1998). Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, 21-58.
8. Coulson, S., & Van Petten, C. (1998). That isn't hilarious, let alone amusing: Readers' sensitivity to constructional violations. Poster presented at the 11th Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, New Brunswick, NJ.
9. Deacon, D., Breton, F., Ritter, W., & Vaughan, H. (1991). The relationship between N2 and N400: Scalp distribution, stimulus probability, and task relevance. Psychophysiology, 28, 185-200.
10. Donchin, E. (1981). Surprise! ... Surprise? Psychophysiology, 18, 493-513.
11. Donchin, E., & Coles, M. (1998b). On the conceptual foundations of cognitive psychophysiology, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 408-419.
12. Donchin, E., & Smith, D. (1970). The contingent negative variation and the positive wave of the average evoked potential. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 37, 449-461.
13. Fillmore, C., Kay, P., & O'Connor, C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64, 501-538.
14. Ganis, G., Kutas, M., & Sereno, M. (1996). The search for "common sense": An electrophysiological investigation of semantic analysis of words and pictures in sentences. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 89-106.
15. Garnsey, S.M. (1985). Function words and content words: Reaction time and evoked potential measures of word recognition (Cognitive Science Tech. Rep. No. URCS-29). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester.
16. Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
17. Gunter, T.C., Friederici, A.D., & Mecklinger, A. (1996). On the automaticity of syntactic processing. In A.D. Friederici (Ed.), Annual report 1995, pp. 21-23. Leipzig: Max-Planck-Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience (cited in Gunter et al., 1997).
18. Gunter, T.C., Stowe, L.A., & Mulder, G. (1997). When syntax meets semantics. Psychophysiology, 34, 660-676.
19. Hagoort, P., Brown, C., & van Groothusen, J. (1993). The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 439-483.
20. Hopf, J., Bayer, J., Bader, M., & Meng, M. (1998). Event-related brain potentials and case information in syntactic ambiguities. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 264-280.
21. Johnston, V., & Holcomb, P. (1980). Probability learning and the P3 component of the visual evoked potential in man. Psychophysiology, 17, 296-400.
22. Jurafsky, D. (1996). A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science, 20, 137-194.
23. Kay, P. (1995). Construction grammar, in J. Verschueren, J.-O. Ostman, & J. Blommaert (Eds), Handbook of pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
24. King, J. & Just, M. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 580-602.
25. King, J., & Kutas, M. (1995). Who did what and when: Using word-and clause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 376-395.
26. King, J., & Kutas, M. (1996). The potentials for basic sentence processing: Differentiating integrative processes. In T. Inui, & J. McClelland (Eds), Attention and human performance, Vol. 16: Information integration in perception and communication, pp. 501-546. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27. King, J. & Kutas, M. (1998). Neural plasticity in the dynamics of human visual word recognition. Neuroscience Letters, 244, 61-64.
28. Kluender, R., & Kutas, M. (1993). Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 573-633.
29. Kutas, M., Federmeier, K., Coulson, S., King, J., & Münte, T. (in press). Language. In J. Cacciopo, L. Tassinary, & G. Berntson (Eds), Handbook of psychophysiology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207, 203-205.
31. Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
32. Mecklinger, A., Schriefers, H., Steinhauer, K., & Friederici, A. (1995). Processing relative clauses varying on syntactic and semantic dimensions: An analysis with event-related potentials. Memory and Cognition, 23, 477-494.
33. Mueller, H., King, J., & Kutas, M. (1997). Event-related potentials elicited by spoken relative clauses. Cognitive Brain Research, 5, 193-203.
34. Münte, T.F., & Heinze, H.J. (1994). ERP negativities during syntactic processing of written words. In H.J. Heinze, T.F. Münte, & G.R. Mangun (Eds), Cognitive electrophysiology (pp. 149-168). Boston, MA: Birkhauser.
35. Münte, T.F., Heinze, H.J., Matzke, M., Wieringa, B., & Johannes, S. (1998). Brain potentials and syntactic violations revisted: No evidence for specificity for the syntactic positive shift. Neuropsychologia, 36, 217-226.
36. Münte, T.F., Matzke, M., & Johannes, S. (1997). Brain activity associated with syntactic incongruencies in words and pseudo-words. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 318-329.
37. Näätänen, R. (1970). Evoked potential, EEG and slow potential correlates of selective attention. Acta Psychologia, 33 (suppl.), 178-192.
38. Neville, H., Mills, D., & Lawson, D. (1992). Fractionating language: Different neural subsystems with different sensitive periods. Cerebral Cortex, 2, 244-258.
39. Neville, H., Nicol, J., Barss, A., Forster, K., & Garrett, M. (1991). Syntactically based sentence processing classes: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 151-165.
40. Nuñez, R. (1981). Electric fields of the brain. New York: Oxford University Press.
41. Osterhout, L., Bersick, M., & McKinnon, R. (1997). Brain potentials elicited by words: Word length and frequency predict the latency of an early negativity. Biological Psychology, 46, 143-168.
42. Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. (1995). Event-related potentials and langauge comprehension. In M. Rugg & M. Coles (Eds), Electrophysiology of Mind: Event-related brain potentials and cognition, pp. 171-215. New York: Oxford University Press.
43. Osterhout, L., McKinnon, R., Bersick, M., & Corey, V. (1996). On the language-specificity of the brain response to syntactic anomalies: Is the syntactic positive shift a member of the P300 family? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 81, 507-526.
44. Patel, A., Gibson, E., Ratner, J., Besson, M., & Holcomb, P. (in press). Processing syntactic relations in language and music: An event-related potential study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.
45. Picton, T. (1992). The P300 wave of the human event-related potential. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, 9, 456-479.
46. Polich, J. (1985). Semantic categorization and event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 26, 304-321.
47. Pollard, C., & Sag, I. (1994). Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Stanford, CA: CLSI/ Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
48. Ritter, W., & Ruchkin, D. (1992). A review of event-related potential components discovered in the context of studying the P3. In D. Friedman & G. Bruder (Eds), Psychophysiology and experimental psychopathology, pp. 1-32. New York: The New York Academy of Sciences.
49. Rösler, F., Pechmann, T., Streb, J., Roeder, B., & Henninghausen, E. (1998). Parsing of sentences in a language with varying word order: Word-by-word variations of processing demand are revealed by event-related brain potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 150-176.
50. Sag, I., Kaplan, R., Karttunen, L., Kay, M., Pollard, C., Shieber, S., & Zaenen, A. (1986). Unification and grammatical theory. In Proceedings of the Fifth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Stanford, CA: Linguistics Dept.
51. Sutton, S., Braren, M., Zubin, J. & John, E.R. (1965). Information delivery and the sensory evoked potential. Science, 150, 1187-1188.
52. Van Petten, C. (1995). Words and sentences: Event-related brain potential measures. Psychophysiology, 32, 511-525.
53. Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (1991). Influences of syntactic and semantic context in open-and closed-class words. Memory and Cognition, 19, 95-112.
54. Walter, W., Cooper, R., Aldridge, V., McCallum, W., & Winter, A. (1964). Contingent negative variation: An electric sign of sensorimotor association and expectancy in the human brain. Nature, 203, 380-384.