The linguistic processes underlying the P600

Language and Cognitive Processes

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 149-188

  Gouvea, Ana C ^a   Phillips, Colin ^b   Kazanina, Nina ^c   Poeppel, David ^b,d  

^a FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^d NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Ambiguity; Event related potentials; Left anterior negativity (LAN); P600; Sentence processing; Syntactic dependencies

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BRAIN FUNCTION; BRAIN MAPPING; COGNITION; COMPREHENSION; CONTROLLED STUDY; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; FEMALE; GRAMMAR; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; LINGUISTICS; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TIME PERCEPTION; WORD RECOGNITION;

EID: 77951171542     PISSN: 01690965     EISSN: 14640732     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01690960902965951     Document Type: Article

References (100)

1. Ainsworth-Darnell, K., Shulman, H., & Boland, J. (1998). Disssociating brain responses to syntactic and semantic anomalies: evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 112-130.
2. Allen, M., Badecker, W., & Osterhout, L. (2003). Morphological analysis in sentence processing: An ERP study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 405-430.
3. Bock, J. K., & Miller, C. A. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 45-93.
4. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2008). An alternative perspective on "semantic P600" effects in language comprehension. Brain Research Reviews, 59, 55-73.
5. Coulson, S., King, J. W., & Kutas, M. (1998a). Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, 21-58.
6. Coulson, S., King, J. W., & Kutas, M. (1998b). ERPs and domain specificity: Beating a straw horse. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, 653-672.
7. Davidson, R. J., Jackson, D. C., & Larson, C. L. (2000). Human electroencephalography. In J. T. Cacioppo, L. G. Tassinary, & G. G. Berntson (Eds.), Handbook of psychophysiology (2nd edn) (pp. 27-52). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Domahs, U., Wiese, R., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2008). The processing of German word stress: evidence for the prosodic hierarchy. Phonology, 25, 1-36.
9. Donaldson, D., & Rugg, M. (1999). Event related potential studies of associative recognition and recall: Electrophysiological evidence for context dependent retrieval process. Brain Research: Cognitive Brain Research, 8, 1-16.
10. Federmeier, K. D. (2007). Thinking ahead: The role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 44, 491-505.
11. Federmeier, K. D., & Kutas, M. (1999). Right words and left words: electrophysiological evidence for hemispheric differences in meaning processing. Cognitive Brain Research, 8, 373-392.
12. Felser, C., Clahsen, H., & Münte, T. F. (2003). Storage and integration in the processing of fillergap dependencies: An ERP study of topicalization and wh-movement in German. Brain and Language, 87, 345-354.
13. Fiebach, C. J., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2002). Separating syntactic memory costs and syntactic integration costs during parsing: the processing of German wh-questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 250-272.
14. Fodor, J. D., & Inoue, A. (1994). The diagnosis and cure of garden paths. Journal of Psycholinguistics Research, 23, 519-560.
15. Frazier, L. (1985). Syntactic complexity. In D. Dowty, L. Karttunen, & A. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language parsing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
16. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17. Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178-210
18. Friederici, A. D. (1995). The time course of syntactic activation during language processing: a model based on neurological and neurophysiological data. Brain and Language, 50, 259-281.
19. Friederici, A. D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 78-84.
20. Friederici, A. D., Hahne, A., & Mecklinger, A. (1996). The temporal structure of syntactic parsing: Early and late event-related potential effects elicited by syntactic anomalies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1219-1248.
21. Friederici, A. D., & Mecklinger, A. (1996). Syntactic parsing as revealed by brain responses: Firstpass and second-pass processes. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 157-176.
22. Friederici, A. D., Mecklinger, A., Spencer, K. M., Steinhauer, K., & Donchin, E. (2001). Syntactic parsing preferences and their on-line revisions: A spatio-temporal analysis of event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Brain Research, 11, 305-323.
23. 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.
24. Friederici, A. D., & Weissenborn, J. (2007). Mapping sentence form onto meaning: The syntaxsemantic interface. Brain Research, 1146, 50-58.
25. Frisch, S., Kotz, S. A., von Cramon, D. Y., & Friederici, A. D. (2003). Why the P600 is not just a P300: the role of the basal ganglia. Clinical Neuropsychology, 114, 336-340.
26. Garnsey, S., Pearlmutter, N. J., Myers, E., & Lotocky, M. A. (1997). The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 58-93.
27. Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1-76.
28. Greenhouse, S., & Geisser, S. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika, 24, 95-112.
29. Grodner, D., & Gibson, E. (2005). Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input. Cognitive Science, 29, 261-291.
30. 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.
31. Gunter, T. C., Stowe, L. A., & Mulder, G. (1997). When syntax meets semantics. Psychophysiology, 34, 660-676.
32. Gurjanov, M., Lukatela, G., Moskovljevic, J., Savic, M., & Turvey, M. T. (1985). Grammatical priming of inflected nouns by inflected adjectives. Cognition, 19, 55-71.
33. Hagoort, P. (2003). How the brain solves the binding problem for language: a neurocomputational model of syntactic processing. Neuroimage, 20, S18-S29.
34. Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. M. (1994). Brain responses to lexical ambiguity resolution and parsing. In C. Clifton Jr., L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 45-80). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
35. Hagoort, P., Brown, C. M., & Groothusen, J. (1993). The syntactic positive shift as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 439-483.
36. Hagoort, P., Brown, C. M., & Osterhout, L. (1999). The neurocognition of syntactic processing. In C. M. Brown & P. Hagoort (Eds.), The neurocognition of language (pp. 273-316). New York: Oxford University Press.
37. Hagoort, P., Wassenaar, M., & Brown, C. (2003a). Syntax-related ERP-effects in Dutch. Cognitive Brain Research, 16, 38-50.
38. Hagoort, P., Wassenaar, M., & Brown, C. (2003b). Real-time semantic compensation in patients with agrammatic comprehension: electrophysiological evidence for multiple-route plasticity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 100(7), 4340-4345.
39. Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (1999). Electrophysiological evidence for two steps in syntactic analysis: Early automatic and late controlled processes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 193-204.
40. Haig, A. R., Gordon, E., & Hook, S. (1997). To scale or not to scale: McCarthy & Wood revisited. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 103, 323-325.
41. Hale, J. (2001). A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. Proceedings of NAACL, 2, 159-166.
42. Hale, J. (2003). The information carried by words in sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32, 101-123.
43. Hartsuiker, R. J., Schriefers, H. J., Bock, K., & Kikstra, G. M. (2003). Morphological influences on the construction of subject-verb agreement. Memory and Cognition, 31, 1316-1326.
44. Hoeks, J. C. J., Stowe, L. A., & Doedens, G. (2004). Seeing words in context: the interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading. Cognitive Brain Research, 19, 59-73.
45. Jing, H., Pivik, R. T., & Dykman, R. A. (2006). A new method for topographic scaling of eventrelated potentials. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 151, 239-249.
46. Kaan, E. (2002). Investigating the effects of distance and number interference in processing subjectverb dependencies: An ERP study. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 165-193.
47. Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E., & Holcomb, P. J. (2000). The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 159-201.
48. Kaan, E., & Swaab, T. Y. (2003a). Electrophysiological evidence for serial sentence processing: A comparison between non-preferred and ungrammatical continuations. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 621-635.
49. Kaan, E., & Swaab, T. Y. (2003b). Repair, revision, and complexity in syntactic analysis: An electrophysiological differentiation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 98-110.
50. Kim, A., & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 205-225.
51. Kluender, R., & Kutas, M. (1993). Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 573-633.
52. Kolk, H. H. J., Chwilla, D. J., van Herten, M., & Oor, P. (2003). Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: a study with event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 85, 1-36.
53. Kuperberg, G. R. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: challenges to syntax. Brain Research, 1146, 23-49.
54. Kuperberg, G. R., Kreher, D. A., Sitnikova, T., Caplan, D., & Holcomb, P. (2007). The role of animacy and thematic relationships in processing active English sentences. Brain and Language, 100, 223-238.
55. Kuperberg, G. R., Sitnikova, T., Caplan, D., & Holcomb, P. (2003). Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 117-129.
56. Kutas, M. (1997). Views on how the electrical activity that the brain generates reflects the functions of different language structures. Psychophysiology, 34, 383-398.
57. Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 463-470.
58. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic anomaly. Science, 207, 203-205.
59. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307, 161-163.
60. Kutas, M., & van Petten, C. (1994). Psycholinguistics electrified: Event-related brain potential investigations. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 88-143). New York: Academic Press.
61. Lau, E., Phillips, C., & Poeppel, D. (2008). A cortical network for semantics: (de)constructing the N400. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, 920-933.
62. Lau, E., Stroud, C., Plesch, S., & Phillips, C. (2006). The role of structural prediction in rapid syntactic analysis. Brain and Language, 98, 74-88.
63. Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106, 1126-1177.
64. Lewis, R. L., Vasishth, S., & van Dyke, J. A. (2006). Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 447-454.
65. Luck, S. J. (2005). An introduction to the event-related potential technique. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
66. Lukatela, G., Moraca, J., Stojnov, D., Savic, M., Katz, L., & Turvey, M. T. (1982). Grammatical priming effects between pronouns and inflected verb forms. Psychological Research (Psychologische Forschung), 44, 297-311.
67. Martín-Loeches, M., Casado, P., Gonzalo, R., de Heras, L., & Fernández-Frías, C. (2006). Brain potentials to mathematical syntax problems. Psychophysiology, 43, 579-591.
68. McCarthy, G., & Wood, C. C. (1985). Scalp distributions of event-related potentials: An ambiguity associated with analysis of variance models. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 62, 203-208.
69. McElree, B. (2000). Sentence comprehension is mediated by content-addressable memory. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 111-123.
70. McElree, B., Foraker, S., & Dyer, L. (2003). Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 67-91.
71. McKinnon, R., & Osterhout, L. (1996). Constraints on movement phenomena in sentence processing: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 495-523.
72. Mills, D. L., Prat, C., Zangl, R., Stager, C. L., Neville, H. J., & Werker, J. F. (2004). Language experience and the organization of brain activity to phonetically similar words: ERP evidence from 14- and 20-month-olds. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 1452-1464.
73. Münte, T. F., Szentkui, A., Wieringa, B. M., Matzke, M., & Johannes, S. (1997). Human brain potentials to reading syntactic errors in sentences of different complexity. Neuroscience Letters, 235, 105-108.
74. Münte, T. F., Heinze, H. J., Matzke, M., Wieringa, B. M., & Johannes, S. (1998). Brain potentials and syntactic violations revisited: No evidence for specificity of the syntactic positive shift. Neuropsychologia, 36, 217-226.
75. Neville, H. J., Nicol, J. L., Barss, A., Forster, K. I., & Garrett, M. F. (1991). Syntactically based sentence processing classes: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 151-165.
76. Nevins, A. I., Dillon, B. W., Malhotra, S., & Phillips, C. (2007). The role of feature-number and feature-type in processing Hindi verb agreement violations. Brain Research, 1164, 81-94.
77. Núñez-Peñ a, M. I., & Honrubia-Serrano, M. L. (2004). P600 related to rule violation in an arithmetic task. Cognitive Brain Research, 18, 130-141.
78. Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97-113.
79. Osterhout, L., Bersick, M., & McLaughlin, J. (1997). Brain potentials reflect violations of gender stereotypes. Memory and Cognition, 25, 273-285.
80. Osterhout, L., & Hagoort, P. (1999). A superficial resemblance does not necessarily mean you are part of the family: Counterarguments to Coulson, King, & Kutas (1998) in the P600/SPS-P300 debate. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 1-14.
81. Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 785-806.
82. Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1993). Event-related potentials and syntactic anomaly: Evidence of anomaly detection during the perception of continuous speech. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 413-438.
83. Osterhout, L., Holcomb, P. J., & Swinney, D. A. (1994). Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: Evidence of the application of verb information during parsing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 20, 786-803.
84. 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, 8, 507-526.
85. Osterhout, L., & Mobley, L. A. (1995). Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 739-773.
86. Patel, A. D., Gibson, E., Ratner, J., Besson, M., & Holcomb, P. J. (1998). Processing syntactic relations in language and music: An event-related potentials study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 717-733.
87. Pearlmutter, N. J., Garnsey, S. M., & Bock, J. K. (1999). Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 427-456.
88. Pickering, M., & Barry, G. (1991). Sentence processing without empty categories. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6, 229-259.
89. Phillips, C., Kazanina, N., & Abada, S. (2005). ERP effects of the processing of syntactic longdistance dependencies. Cognitive Brain Research, 22, 407-428.
90. Phillips, C., & Wagers, M. (2007). Relating structure and time in linguistics and psycholinguistics. In G. Gaskell (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
91. Stroud, C. (2008). Structural and semantic selectivity in the electrophysiology of sentence comprehension. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.
92. Stroud, C., & Phillips, C. (2008). The structural and semantic selectivity of the "thematic" P600 in sentence comprehension. Poster at The Society for Neuroscience meeting, Washington, DC, November.
93. Trueswell, J., Tanenhaus, M., & Kello, C. (1993). Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 528-553.
94. Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2002). The intractability of scaling scalp distributions to infer neuroelectric sources. Psychophysiology, 39, 791-808.
95. van Berkum, J. J. A., Koornneef, A. W., Otten, M., & Nieuwland, M. S. (2007). Establishing reference in language comprehension: An electrophysiological perspective. Brain Research, 1146, 158-171.
96. van Herten, M., Kolk, H. H. J., & Chwilla, D. J. (2005). An ERP study of P600 effects elicited by semantic anomaly. Cognitive Brain Research, 22, 241-255.
97. Van Petten, C., & Luka, B. J. (2006). Neural localization of semantic context effects in electromagnetic and hemodynamic studies. Brain and Language, 97, 279-293.
98. Vos, S. H., Gunter, T. C., Kolk, H. H. J., & Mulder, G. (2001). Working memory constraints on syntactic processing: An electrophysiological investigation. Psychophysiology, 38, 41-63.
99. Vosse, T., & Kempen, G. (2000). Syntactic structure assembly in human parsing: A computational model based on competitive inhibition and a lexicalist grammar. Cognition, 75, 105-143.
100. Wagers, M. W., Lau, E. F., & Phillips, C. (in press). Agreement attraction in comprehension: representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language.