Brain responses to segmentally and tonally induced semantic violations in Cantonese

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 1-12

  Schirmer, Annett ^a,c   Tang, Siu Lam ^b   Penney, Trevor B ^b   Gunter, Thomas C ^a   Chen, Hsuan Chih ^b  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN COGNITIVE AND BRAIN SCIENCES   (Germany)

^b CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^c University of Georgia ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTICS; ADULT; ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; AUTOMATION; COMPREHENSION; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; EVOKED AUDITORY RESPONSE; EVOKED CORTICAL RESPONSE; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEMANTICS; SOUND INTENSITY; SOUND TRANSMISSION; SPEECH; TASK PERFORMANCE; TOPOGRAPHY;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BRAIN; BRAIN MAPPING; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED POTENTIALS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; REACTION TIME; SEMANTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 12544257288     PISSN: 0898929X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1162/0898929052880057     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Allan, K., Wilding, E. L., & Rugg, M. D. (1998). Electrophysiological evidence for dissociable processes contributing to recollection. Acta Psychologica, 98, 231-252.
2. Bocker, K. B., Bastiaansen, M. C., Vroomen, J., Brunia, C. H., & de Gelder, B. (1999). An ERP correlate of metrical stress in spoken word recognition. Psychophysiology, 36, 706-720.
3. Chen, H.-C. (1992). Reading comprehension in Chinese: Implications from character reading times. In H.-C. Chen & O. Tzeng (Eds.). Language processing in Chinese (pp. 175-205). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
4. Chen, H.-C, Cheung, H., Tang, S. L., & Wong, Y. T. (2000). Effects of antecedent order and semantic context on Chinese pronoun resolution. Memory & Cognition, 28, 427-438.
5. Chen, H.-C., & Juola, J. F. (1982). Dimensions of lexical coding in Chinese and English. Memory & Cognition, 10, 216-224.
6. Chen, H.-C., & Shu, H. (2001). Lexical activation during the recognition of Chinese characters: Evidence against early phonological activation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 8, 511-518.
7. Connine, C. M., Titone, D., Deelman, T., & Blasko, D. G. (1997). Similarity mapping in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 463-480.
8. Connolly, J. F., & Phillips, N. A. (1994). Event-related potential components reflect phonological and semantic processing of the terminal word of spoken sentences. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 6, 256-266.
9. Connolly, J. F., Phillips, N. A., Stewart, S. H., & Brake, W. G. (1992). Event-related potential sensitivity to acoustic and semantic properties of terminal words in sentences. Brain and Language, 43, 1-18.
10. Cutler, A. (1986). Forbear is a homophone: Lexical prosody does not constrain lexical access. Language and Speech, 29, 201-220.
11. Cutler, A., & Chen, H.-C. (1997). Lexical tone in Cantonese spoken-word processing. Perception and Psychophysics, 59, 165-179.
12. Cutler, A., & Van Donselaar, W. (2001). Voornaam is not (really) a homophone: Lexical prosody and lexical access in Dutch. Language and Speech, 44, 171-195.
13. Friederici, A. D., Pfeifer, E., & Hahne, A. (1993). Event-related brain potentials during natural speech processing: Effects of semantic, morphological and syntactic violations. Cognitive Brain Research, 1, 183-192.
14. Friedrich, C. K., Alter, K., & Kotz, S. A. (2001). An electrophysiological response to different pitch contours in words. NeuroReport, 12, 3189-3191.
15. Friedrich, C. K., Kotz, S. A., Friederici, A. F., & Alter, K. (2004). Pitch modulates lexical identification in spoken word recognition: ERP and behavioral evidence. Cognitive Brain Research, 20, 300-308.
16. Gunter, T. C., Friederici, A. D., & Schriefers, H. (2000). Syntactic gender and semantic expectancy: ERPs reveal early autonomy and late interaction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 556-568.
17. Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. (2000). ERP effects of listening to speech: Semantic ERP effects. Neuropsychologia, 38, 1518-1530.
18. Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (2002). Differential task effects on semantic and syntactic processes as revealed by ERPs. Cognitive Brain Research, 13, 339-356.
19. Holcomb, P. J., & Anderson, J. E. (1993). Cross-modal semantic priming: A time-course analysis using event-related brain potentials. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 379-411.
20. Holcomb, P. J., & Neville, H. (1990). Semantic priming in visual and auditory lexical decision: A between modality comparison. Language and Cognitive Processes, 5, 281-312.
21. Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
22. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207, 203-205.
23. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307, 161-163.
24. Kutas, M., Van Petten, C., & Besson, M. (1988). Event-related potential asymmetries during the reading of sentences. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 69, 218-233.
25. Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1987). Functional parallelism in spoken word-recognition. Cognition, 25, 71-102.
26. Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Moss, H. E., & van Halen, S. (1996). Perceptual distance and competition in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1376-1392.
27. McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1-86.
28. McQueen, J. M., Norris, D. G., & Cutler, A. (1994). Competition in spoken word recognition: Spotting words in other words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 621-638.
29. Mecklinger, A. (2000). Interfacing mind and brain: A neurocognitive model of recognition memory. Psychophysiology, 37, 565-582.
30. Münte, T. F., Heinze, H.-J., Matzke, M., Wieringa, B. M., & Johannes, S. (1998). Brain potentials and syntactic violations revisited: No evidence for the specificity of the syntactic positive shift. Neuropsychologia, 36, 217-226.
31. Norris, D. (1994). Shortlist: A connectionist model of continuous speech recognition. Cognition, 52, 189-234.
32. Schön, D., Schirmer, A., Ng, E., Penney, T., & Besson, M. (submitted). Effects of phonemic and tone changes on semantic processing in Cantonese: A behavioral and ERP study.
33. Soto-Faraco, S., Sebastián-Gallés, N., & Cutler, A. (2001). Segmental and suprasegmental mismatch in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 412-432.
34. Van den Brink, D., Brown, C. M., & Hagoort, P. (2001). Electrophysiological evidence for early contextual influences during spoken-word recognition: N200 versus N400 effects. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13, 967-985.
35. Van Petten, C., Coulson, S., Rubin, S., Plante, E., & Parks, M. (1999). Time course of word identification and semantic integration in spoken language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 394-417.
36. Ye, Y., & Connine, C. M. (1999). Processing spoken Chinese: The role of tone information. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 609-630.
37. Zhang, L. Y., & Zhang, S. Y. (1987). Common Chinese characters pronounced according to Mandarin and Cantonese. Hong Kong: Zhong Hua.
38. Zwitserlood, P. (1989). The locus of the effects of sentential-semantic context in spoken word processing. Cognition, 32, 25-64.