Speech and span: Working memory capacity impacts the use of animacy but not of world knowledge during spoken sentence comprehension

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Volumn 22, Issue 12, 2010, Pages 2886-2898

  Nakano, Hiroko ^a   Saron, Clifford ^b   Swaab, Tamara Y ^b  

^a SAINT MARY'S COLLEGE OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAM; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMAN; KNOWLEDGE; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPEECH; THEMATIC ANALYSIS; WORKING MEMORY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BRAIN; BRAIN MAPPING; COMPREHENSION; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED POTENTIALS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MEMORY, SHORT-TERM; READING; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ANIMACY; BRAIN RESPONSE; CONDITION; EVENT RELATED POTENTIALS; MEMORY CAPACITY; SEMANTIC PROCESSING; SIMPLE++; THEMATIC RELATIONS; WORKING MEMORY; WORLD KNOWLEDGE;

EID: 78649462147     PISSN: 0898929X     EISSN: 15308898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1162/jocn.2009.21400     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the competition model. In B. MacWhinney & E. Bates (Eds.), A cross-linguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 3-73). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2. Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 355-387.
3. Bornkessel, I. D., Fiebach, C., & Friederici, A. D. (2004). On the cost of syntactic ambiguity in human language comprehension: An individual differences approach. Cognitive Brain Research, 21, 11-21.
4. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2008). An alternative perspective on "semantic P600" effects in language comprehension. Brain Research Reviews, 59, 55-73.
5. Camblin, C. C., Gordon, P. C., & Swaab, T. Y. (2007). The interplay of discourse congruence and lexical association during sentence processing: Evidence from ERPs and eye tracking. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 103-128.
6. Caplan, D., & Waters, G. S. (1999). Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 77-126.
7. Clifton, C., Jr., Traxler, M. J., Mohamed, M. T., Williams, R. S., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (2003). The use of thematic role information in parsing: Syntactic processing autonomy revisited. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 317-334.
8. Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 19, 450-466.
9. Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164-203.
10. Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C. E. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348-368.
11. Fischler, I., Bloom, P., Childers, D., Roucos, S.,&Perry, N. (1983). Brain potentials related to stages of sentence verification. Psychophysiology, 20, 400-409.
12. Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance: XII. The psychology of reading (pp. 559-586). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. Greenhouse, S., & Geisser, S. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika, 24, 95-112.
14. Hagoort, P., Brown, C., & Groothusen, J. (1993). The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. In S. M. Garnsey (Ed.), Language and cognitive processes. Special issue: Event related brain potentials in the study of language (Vol. 8, pp. 439-483). Hove, UK: Erlbaum.
15. Hagoort, P., Brown, C., & Swaab, T. Y. (1996). Lexical-semantic event-related potential effects in patients with left hemisphere lesions and aphasia, and patients with right hemisphere lesions without aphasia. Brain, 119, 627-649.
16. Hagoort, P., Hald, L., Bastiaansen, M., & Petersson, K. M. (2004). Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science, 304, 438-441.
17. 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.
18. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122-149.
19. Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E., & Holcomb, P. (2000). The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 159-201. (Pubitemid 30353507)
20. Kim, A., & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from eventrelated potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 205-225.
21. King, J., & Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 580-602.
22. King, J. W., & Kutas, M. (1995). Who did what and when? Using word and clause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 376-395.
23. Kolk, H. H., Chwilla, D. J., van Herten, M., & Oor, P. J. (2003). Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 85, 1-36.
24. Kuperberg, G. R. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research, 1146, 23-49.
25. Kuperberg, G. R., Kreher, D. A., Sitnikova, T., Caplan, D., & Holcomb, P. J. (2007). The role of animacy and thematic relationships in processing active English sentences: Evidence from event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 100, 223-238.
26. Kuperberg, G. R., Sitnikova, T., Caplan, D., & Holcomb, P. J. (2003). Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 117-129.
27. Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 463-470.
28. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potential reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207, 203-205.
29. Ledoux, K., Camblin, C. C., Swaab, T. Y., & Gordon, P. C. (2006). Reading words in discourse: The modulation of intralexical priming effects by message-level context. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 5, 107-127.
30. Long, D. L., & Prat, C. (2008). Individual differences in syntactic ambiguity resolution: Readers vary in their use of plausibility information. Memory & Cognition, 36, 375-391.
31. MacDonald, M. C., & Christiansen, M. H. (2002). Reassessing working memory: Comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996). Psychological Review, 109, 35-54.
32. MacDonald, M. C., Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). Working memory constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 56-98.
33. MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676-703.
34. Markus, P., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., Bisang, W., & Schlesewsky, M. (2008). The role of animacy in the real time comprehension of Mandarin Chinese: Evidence from auditory event-related brain potentials. Brain and Language, 105, 112-133.
35. Marslen-Wilson, W., & Tyler, L. K. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8, 1-71.
36. Münte, T. F., Schiltz, K., & Kutas, M. (1998). When temporal terms belie conceptual order. Nature, 395, 71-73.
37. Nakano, H., & Blumstein, S. E. (2004). Deficits in thematic integration processes in Broca's and Wernicke's aphasia. Brain and Language, 88, 96-107.
38. Nakano, H., & Swaab, T. Y. (2005). Aphasic patients with IFG lesions are impaired in the integration of thematic information in simple unambiguous sentences. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, (Suppl.), 227.
39. Nieuwland, M. S., & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2006). Individual differences and contextual bias in pronoun resolution: Evidence from ERPs. Brain Research, 1118, 155-167.
40. Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 785-806.
41. Snijders, T. M., Vosse, T., Kempen, G., van Berkum, J. J. A., Petersson, K. M., & Hagoort, P. (2009). Retrieval and unification of syntactic structure in sentence comprehension: An fMRI study using word-category ambiguity. Cerebral Cortex, 19, 1493-1503.
42. Swaab, T. Y., Brown, C., & Hagoort, P. (1998). Understanding ambiguous words in sentence contexts: Electrophysiological evidence for delayed contextual selection in Broca's aphasia. Neuropsychologia, 36, 737-761.
43. Swaab, T. Y., Ledoux, K., Camblin, C. C., & Boudewyn, M. A. (in press). Electrophysiology of language. In S. J. Luck & E. S. Kappenman (Eds.), Event-related potential components: The ups and downs of brainwave recordings. Oxford University Press.
44. Van Berkum, J. J. A. (in press). The neuropragmatics of "simple" utterance comprehension: An ERP review. In: U. Sauerland & K. Yatsushiro (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: From experiment to theory. Palgrave.
45. van Herten, M., Kolk, H. H., & Chwilla, D. J. (2005). An ERP study of P600 effects elicited by semantic anomalies. Cognitive Brain Research, 22, 241-255.
46. Van Petten, C., Weckerly, C., McIsaac, H. K., & Kutas, M. (1997). Working memory capacity dissociates lexical and sentential context effects. Psychological Science, 8, 238-242.
47. Vos, S. H., & Friederici, A. D. (2003). Intersentential syntactic context effects on comprehension: The role of working memory. Cognitive Brain Research, 16, 111-122.
48. Waters, G. S., & Caplan, D. (2003). The reliability and stability of verbal working memory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 35, 550-564.
49. Waters, G. S., & Caplan, D. (2004). Verbal working memory and on-line syntactic processing: Evidence from self-paced listening. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 57A, 129-163.
50. Weckerly, J., & Kutas, M. (1999). An electrophysiological analysis of animacy effects in the processing of object relative sentences. Psychophysiology, 36, 559-570. (Pubitemid 29357551)