Parafoveal versus foveal N400s dissociate spreading activation from contextual fit

NeuroReport

Volumn 20, Issue 18, 2009, Pages 1613-1618

  Kretzschmar, Franziska ^a,b   Bornkessel Schlesewsky, Ina ^b,c   Schlesewsky, Matthias ^a  

^a JOHANNES GUTENBERG UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b PHILIPPS UNIVERSITY MARBURG   (Germany)

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

Author keywords

Evoked potentials; Eye movements; Fixation related potentials N400; Psycholinguistics; Reading; Semantic predictability; Semantic relatedness

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAM; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; EYE MOVEMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; MISMATCH NEGATIVITY; NEUROPHYSIOLOGY; NORMAL HUMAN; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; READING; RETINA FOVEA; SEMANTICS;

ADULT; BRAIN; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED POTENTIALS; EYE MOVEMENT MEASUREMENTS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; READING; SEMANTICS; THINKING; TIME FACTORS; VOCABULARY; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 74349104737     PISSN: 09594965     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/WNR.0b013e328332c4f4     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Kutas M, Van Petten C, Kluender R. Psycholinguistics electrified II (1994-2005). In: Traxler M, Gernsbacher MA, editors. Handbook of psycholinguistics. London: Elsevier; 2006. pp. 659-724.
2. Kutas M, Hillyard SA. Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science 1980; 207:203-205.
3. Kutas M, Federmeier KD. Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends Cogn Sci 2000; 4:463-469.
4. Lau E, Phillips C, Poeppel D. A cortical network for semantics: (de)constructing the N400. Nat Rev Neurosci 2008; 9:920-933.
5. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I, Schlesewsky M. Processing syntax and morphology: a neurocognitive perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009.
6. Barrett SE, Rugg MD. Event-related potentials and the semantic matching of pictures. Brain Cogn 1990; 14:201-212.
7. Sitnikova T, Kuperberg GR, Holcomb PJ. Semantic integration in videos of real-world events: an electrophysiological investigation. Psychophysiology 2003; 40:160-164.
8. Niedeggen M, Rösler F. N400 effects reflect activation spread during retrieval of arithmetic facts. Psychol Sci 1999; 10:271-276.
9. Brown C, Hagoort P. The processing nature of the N400: evidence from masked priming. J Cogn Neurosci 1993; 5:34-44.
10. Hagoort P. The fractionation of spoken language understanding by measuring electrical and magnetic brain signals. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2008; 363:1055-1069.
11. Haupt FS, Schlesewsky M, Roehm D, Friederici AD, Bornkessel- Schlesewsky I. The status of subject-object reanalyses in the language comprehension architecture. J Mem Lang 2008; 59:54-96.
12. Choudhary KK, Schlesewsky M, Roehm D, Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I. The N400 as a correlate of interpretively-relevant linguistic rules: Evidence from Hindi. Neuropsychologia 2009; 47:3012-3022.
13. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I, Schlesewsky M. An alternative perspective on "semantic P600" effects in language comprehension. Brain Res Rev 2008; 59:55-73.
14. Roehm D, Schlesewsky M, Bornkessel I, Frisch S, Haider H. Fractionating language comprehension via frequency characteristics of the human EEG. Neuroreport 2004; 15:409-412.
15. Federmeier KD, Kutas MA. Rose by any other name: long-term memory structure and sentence processing. J Mem Lang 1999; 41:469-495.
16. Camblin CC, Gordon PC, Swaab TY. The interplay of discourse congruence and lexical association during sentence processing: evidence from ERPs and eye tracking. J Mem Lang 2007; 56:103-128.
17. Kutas M, Iragui V. The N400 in a semantic categorization task across 6 decades. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1998; 108:456-471.
18. Roehm D, Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I, Rösler F, Schlesewsky M. To predict or not to predict: influences of task and strategy on the processing of semantic relations. J Cogn Neurosci 2007; 19:1259-1274.
19. Rayner K. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychol Bull 1998; 124:372-422.
20. Baccino T, Manunta Y. Eye-fixation-related potentials: insight into parafoveal processing. J Psychophysiol 2005; 19:204-215.
21. Starr M, Inhoff A. Attention allocation to the right and left of a fixated word: use of orthographic information from multiple words during reading. Eur J Cogn Psychol 2004; 16:203-225.
22. White S. Eye movement control during reading: effects of word frequency and orthographic familiarity. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 2008; 34:205-223.
23. Hutzler F, Braun M, Vo MLH, Engl V, Hofmann M, Dambacher M, et al. Welcome to the real world: validating fixation-related brain potentials for ecologically valid settings. Brain Res 2007; 1172:124-129.
24. Simola J, Holmqvist K, Lindgren M. Right visual field advantage in parafoveal processing: evidence from eye-fixation related potentials. Brain Lang (in press).
25. Drieghe D, Rayner K, Pollatsek A. Mislocated fixations can account for parafoveal-on-foveal effects in eye movements during reading. Q J Exp Psychol 2008; 61:1239-1249.
26. Howes A, Lewis RL, Vera A. Rational adaptation under task and processing constraints: implications for testing theories of cognition and action. Psychol Rev (in press).
27. Sereno SC, Rayner K. Measuring word recognition in reading: eye movements and event-related potentials. Trends Cogn Sci 2003; 7:489-493.