Cloze probability does not only affect N400 amplitude: The case of complex prepositions

Psychophysiology

Volumn 45, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 1008-1012

  Molinaro, Nicola ^a,b   Vespignani, Francesco ^b   Canal, Paolo ^c   Fonda, Sergio ^c   Cacciari, Cristina ^c  

^a UNIVERSIDAD DE LA LAGUNA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TRENTO   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MODENA AND REGGIO EMILIA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Cloze probability; ERPs; N400 700; Sentence comprehension; Vocabulary class

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AMPLITUDE MODULATION; ARTICLE; CLOZE PROBABILITY; COMPREHENSION; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAM; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LINGUISTICS; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; WORD RECOGNITION;

EID: 54049084274     PISSN: 00485772     EISSN: 14698986     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2008.00694.x     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Brown, C. M., Hagoort, P. ter Keurs, M. (1999). Electrophysiological signatures of visual lexical processing: Open- and closed-class words. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 261 281.
2. DeLong, K. A., Urbach, T. P. Kutas, M. (2005). Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 1117 1121.
3. King, W. K. Kutas, M. (1995). Who did what and when? Using word- and clause related ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 378 397.
4. King, W. K. Kutas, M. (1998). Neural plasticity in the dynamics of human visual word recognition. Neuroscience Letters, 244, 61 64.
5. Kutas, M. (1997). Views on how the electrical activity that the brain generates reflects the functions of different language structure. Psychophysiology, 34, 383 398.
6. Kutas, M. Hillyard, S. A. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307, 161 163.
7. Kutas, M., Van Petten, C. Kluender, R. (2006). Psycholinguistic electrified II: 1994-2005. In M. Traxler M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed, pp. 659 724). New York : Elsevier.
8. Laudanna, A., Thornton, A. M., Brown, G., Burani, C. Marconi, L. (1995). Un corpus dell'italiano scritto contemporaneo dalla parte del ricevente. In S. Bolasco, L. Lebart A. Salem (Eds.), III Giornate internazionali di Analisi Statistica dei Dati Testuali (Vol. I, pp. 103 109). Roma : Cisu.
9. Metting van Rijn, A. C., Peper, A. Grimbergen, C. A. (1990). High-quality recording of bioelectric events. Part 1. Interference reduction, theory and practice. Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing, 28, 389 397.
10. Munte, T. F., Wieringa, B. M., Weyerts, H., Szentkuti, A., Matzke, M. Johannes, S. (2001). Differences in brain potentials to open and closed class words: Class and frequency effects. Neuropsychologia, 39, 91 102.
11. Neville, H. J., Mills, D. L. Lawson, D. S. (1992). Fractionating language: Different neural subsystems with different sensitive periods. Cerebral Cortex, 2, 244 258.
12. Osterhout, L., Allen, M. McLaughlin, J. (2002). Words in the brain: Lexical determinants of word-induced brain activity. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 15, 171 187.
13. 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.
14. Trawinski, B. (2003). Licensing complex prepositions via lexical constraints. In F. Bond, A. Korhonen, D. McCarthy A. Villavicencio (Eds.), Proceedings of the ACL 2003 Workshop on Multiword Expressions: Analysis, Acquisition and Treatment (pp. 97 104). East Stroudsburg, PA : Association for Computational Linguistics.
15. Van Petten, C. Kutas, M. (1991). Influences of semantic and syntactic context on open- and closed-class words. Memory and Cognition, 19, 95 112.