Semantic illusion depends on information structure: ERP evidence

Brain Research

Volumn 1282, Issue , 2009, Pages 50-56

  Wang, Lin ^a,b,c   Hagoort, Peter ^b,c   Yang, Yufang ^a  

^a INSTITUTE OF PSYCHOLOGY   (China)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS   (Netherlands)

^c RADBOUD UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Information structure; N400 effect; Semantic illusion; Semantic integration; Wh question answer pair

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BRAIN FUNCTION; ELECTRODE; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INFORMATION STRUCTURE; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEMANTICS; STIMULUS RESPONSE; TASK PERFORMANCE;

ADULT; BRAIN MAPPING; CEREBRAL CORTEX; COGNITION; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED POTENTIALS; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HUMANS; ILLUSIONS; LANGUAGE; LANGUAGE TESTS; MALE; PHOTIC STIMULATION; REACTION TIME; SEMANTICS; SPEECH; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TIME FACTORS; VERBAL BEHAVIOR; YOUNG ADULT;

SOLANUM MELONGENA;

EID: 67649654101     PISSN: 00068993     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2009.05.069     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Barton S.B., and Sanford AJ. A case study of anomaly detection: shallow semantic processing and cohesion establishment. Mem. Cognit. 21 (1996) 477-487
2. Beijing Institute of Language. Modern Chinese Frequency Dictionary (in Chinese) (1986), Beijing Institute of Language press
3. Birch S., and Rayner K. Linguistic focus affects eye movements during reading. Mem. Cognit. 25 (1997) 653-660
4. Bredart S., and Modolo K. Moses strikes again: focalization effects on a semantic illusion. Acta Psychol. 67 (1998) 135-144
5. Büttner A.C. Questions versus statements: challenging an assumption about semantic illusions. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 60 6 (2007) 779-789
6. Cutler A., and Fodor J.A. Semantic focus and sentence comprehension. Cognition 7 (1979) 49-59
7. Erickson T.A., and Matteson M.E. From words to meaning: a semantic illusion. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 20 (1981) 540-552
8. George M.S., Manners S., and Hoffinan J.E. Global semantic expectancy and language comprehension. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 6 1 (1994) 70-83
9. Gu{double acute}nther C., Maienborn C., and Schopp A. The processing of information structure. In: Bosch P., and van der Sandt R.A. (Eds). Focus: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives (1999), Cambridge University press 18-43
10. Guo T., Qi Z., Peng D., and Yan Y. An ERP study of the neural correlates of processing Chinese content words and function words. J. Neurolinguistics 21 3 (2008) 267-275
11. Hagoort P., Hald L., Bastiaansen M., and Petersson K.M. Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science 304 (2004) 438-441
12. Hannon B., and Daneman M. Susceptibility to semantic illusions: an individual differences perspective. Mem. Cognit. 29 3 (2001) 449-461
13. Jackendoff R. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution (2002), Oxford University Press, New York
14. Jasinskaja E., Mayer J., and Schlangen D. Discourse structure and information structure: interfaces and prosodic realization. In: Ishihara S., Schmitz M., and Schwarz A. (Eds). Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 1 (2004), Universität Potsdam 151-206
15. Kutas M., and Federmeier K. Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends Cogn. Sci. 4 12 (2000) 436-470
16. Kutas M., and Hillyard S.A. Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science 207 (1980) 203-205
17. Kutas M., Van Petten C.K., and Kluender R. Psycholinguistics electrified II: 1994-2005. In: Gernsbacher M.A., and Traxler M. (Eds). Handbook of Psycholinguistics. 2nd edition (2006), Elsevier Press, New York 659-724
18. Li X., Hagoort P., and Yang Y. Event-related potential evidence on the influence of accentuation in spoken discourse comprehension in Chinese. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 20 5 (2008) 906-915
19. Li X., Yang Y., and Hagoort P. Pitch accent and lexical tone processing in Chinese discourse comprehension: an ERP study. Brain Res. 1222 (2008) 192-200
20. Münte T.F., Wieringa B.M., Weyerts H., Szentkuti A., Matzke M., and Johannes S. Differences in brain potentials to open and closed class words: class and frequency effects. Neuropsychologia 39 1 (2001) 91-102
21. Nieuwland M.S., and Van Berkum J.J.A. Testing the limits of the semantic illusion phenomenon: ERPs reveal temporary semantic change deafness in discourse comprehension. Cogn. Brain Res. 24 (2005) 691-701
22. Nieuwland M.S., and Van Berkum J.J.A. When peanuts fall in love: N400 evidence for the power of discourse. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 18 7 (2006) 1098-1111
23. Otten M., and van Berkum J.J.A. What makes a discourse constraining? Comparing the effects of discourse message and scenario fit on the discourse-dependent N400 effect. Brain Res. 1153 (2007) 166-177
24. Sanford A.J. Context, attention and depth of processing during interpretation. Mind. Lang. 17 (2002) 188-206
25. Sanford A.J., and Sturt P. Depth of processing in language comprehension: not noticing the evidence. Trends Cogn. Sci. 382 9 (2002) 382-386
26. Sanford A.J.S., Sanford A.J., Molle J., and Emmott C. Shallow processing and attention capture in written and spoken discourse. Discourse Processes 42 2 (2006) 109-130
27. Semlitsch H.V., Anderer P., Schuster P., and Presslich O. A solution for reliable and valid reduction of ocular artifacts, applied to the P300 ERP. Psychophysiology 23 (1986) 695-703
28. Shafto M., and Mackay D.G. The Moses, mega-Moses, and Armstrong illusions: integrating language comprehension and semantic memory. Psychol. Sci. 11 5 (2000) 372-378
29. Van Berkum J.J.A., Zwitserlood P., Hagoort P., and Brown C.M. When and how do listeners relate a sentence to the wider discourse? Evidence from the N400 effect. Cogn. Brain Res. 17 (2003) 701-718
30. Van Oostendorp H., and De Mul S. Moses beats Adam: a semantic relatedness effect on a semantic illusion. Acta Psychol. 74 1 (1990) 35-46
31. Van Petten C., and Kutas M. Influences of semantic and syntactic context on open- and closed-class words. Mem. Cognit. 19 1 (1991) 95-112
32. Ward P., and Sturt P. Linguistic focus and memory: an eye movement study. Mem. Cognit. 35 (2007) 73-86