Similar neural correlates for language and sequential learning: Evidence from event-related brain potentials

Language and Cognitive Processes

Volumn 27, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 231-256

  Christiansen, Morten H ^a   Conway, Christopher M ^b   Onnis, Luca ^c  

^a Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

^b SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII   (United States)

Author keywords

Event related potentials (ERPs); Implicit learning; Language processing; P600; Prediction; Sequential learning

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAM; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; EXPECTATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; LEARNING; LEFT ANTERIOR NEGATIVITY; MALE; MENTAL PERFORMANCE; NERVE CELL NETWORK; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEQUENTIAL LEARNING; TIME SERIES ANALYSIS;

EID: 84856875263     PISSN: 01690965     EISSN: 14640732     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2011.606666     Document Type: Article

References (144)

1. Allen, M., Badecker, W. and Osterhout, L. 2003. Morphological analysis in sentence processing: An ERP study. Language & Cognitive Processes, 18: 405-430.
2. Altmann, G. T. M. and Dienes, Z. 1999. Rule learning by seven-month-old infants and neural networks. Science, 284: 875
3. Aslin, R. N., Saffran, J. R. and Newport, E. L. 1998. Computation of conditional probability statistics by 8-month-old infants. Psychological Science, 9: 321-324.
4. Bahlmann, J., Gunter, T. C. and Friederici, A. D. 2006. Hierarchical and linear sequence processing: An electrophysiological exploration of two different grammar types. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18: 1829-1842.
5. Baldwin, K. B. and Kutas, M. 1997. An ERP analysis of implicit structured sequence learning. Psychophysiology, 34: 74-86.
6. Barber, H. and Carreiras, M. 2005. Grammatical gender and number agreement in Spanish: An ERP comparison. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17: 137-153.
7. Barr, M. 2007. The proactive brain: Using analogies and associations to generate predictions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11: 280-289.
8. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. and Schlesewsky, M. 2008. An alternative perspective on "semantic P600" effects in language comprehension. Brain Research Reviews, 59: 55-73.
9. Brooks, P. J., Braine, M. D. S., Catalano, L., Brody, R. E. and Sudhalter, V. 1993. Acquisition of gender-like noun subclasses in an artificial language: The contribution of phonological markers to learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 32: 76-95.
10. Carrión, R. E. and Bly, B. M. 2007. Event-related potential markers of expectation violation in an artificial grammar learning task. NeuroReport, 18: 191-195.
11. Chambers, K. E., Onishi, K. H. and Fisher, C. 2003. Infants learn phonotactic regularities from brief auditory experience. Cognition, 87: B69-B77.
12. Christiansen, M. H. and Chater, N. 2008. Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 31: 489-558.
13. Christiansen, M. H., Conway, C. M., & Curtin, S. 2000. Gleitman L. R., & Joshi A. K. A connectionist single-mechanism account of rule-like behavior in infancy. The proceedings of the 22nd annual conference of the cognitive science society 83-88 Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14. Christiansen, M. H., Kelly, M. L., Shillcock, R. C. and Greenfield, K. 2010. Impaired artificial grammar learning in agrammatism. Cognition, 116: 382-393.
15. Cleeremans, A., Destrebecqz, A. and Boyer, M. 1998. Implicit learning: News from the front. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2: 406-416.
16. Cleeremans, A. and McClelland, J. L. 1991. Learning the structure of event sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120: 235-253.
17. Clegg, B. A., DiGirolamo, G. J. and Keele, S. W. 1998. Sequence learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2: 275-281.
18. Conway, C. M., Bauernschmidt, A., Huang, S. S. and Pisoni, D. B. 2010. Implicit statistical learning in language processing: Word predictability is the key. Cognition, 114: 356-371.
19. Conway, C. M. and Christiansen, M. H. 2001. Sequential learning in non-human primates. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5: 539-546.
20. Conway, C. M. and Christiansen, M. H. 2005. Modality-constrained statistical learning of tactile, visual, and auditory sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31: 24-39.
21. Conway, C. M. and Christiansen, M. H. 2006. Statistical learning within and between modalities: Pitting abstract against stimulus specific representations. Psychological Science, 17: 905-912.
22. Conway, C. M., Ellefson, M. R., & Christiansen, M. H. 2003. Alterman R. Kirsh D. When less is less and when less is more: Starting small with staged input. Proceedings of the 25th annual conference of the cognitive science society 270-275 Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23. Conway, C. M., Karpicke, J. and Pisoni, D. B. 2007. Contribution of implicit sequence learning to spoken language processing: Some preliminary findings from normal-hearing adults. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12: 317-334.
24. Coulson, S., King, J. W. and Kutas, M. 1998. Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13: 21-58.
25. Coulson, S. and Kutas, M. 2001. Getting it: Human event-related brain response to jokes in good and poor comprehenders. Neuroscience Letters, 316: 71-74.
26. Coulson, S. and Lovett, C. 2004. Handedness, hemispheric asymmetry, and joke comprehension. Cognitive Brain Research, 19: 275-288.
27. Coulson, S. and Van Petten, C. 2002. Conceptual integration and metaphor: An ERP Study. Memory & Cognition, 30: 958-968.
28. Coulson, S. and Van Petten, C. 2007. A special role for the right hemisphere in metaphor comprehension: An ERP Study. Brain Research, 1146: 128-145.
29. Coulson, S. and Williams, R. F. 2005. Hemispheric asymmetries and joke comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 43: 128-141.
30. Crocker, M. W., Knoeferle, P. and Mayberry, M. R. 2010. Situated sentence processing: The coordinated interplay account and a neurobehavioral model. Brain and Language, 112: 189-201.
31. Curran, T. and Keele, S. W. 1993. Attentional and nonattentional forms of sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19: 189-202.
32. Dell, G. S., Reed, K. D., Adams, D. R. and Meyer, A. S. 2000. Speech errors, phonotactic constraints, and implicit learning: A study of the role of experience in language production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26: 1355-1367.
33. Delorme, A. and Makeig, S. 2004. EEGLAB: An open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 134: 9-21.
34. Eimer, M.,T. Goschke, T., Schlaghecken, F., & Stürmer, B. 1996. Explicit and implicit learning of event sequences: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 22, 970-987.
35. Federmeier, K. 2007. Thinking ahead: The role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 44: 491-505.
36. Felser, C., Clahsen, H. and Münte, T. F. 2003. Storage and integration in the processing of filler-gap dependencies: An ERP study of topicalization and wh-movement in German. Brain and Language, 87: 345-354.
37. Ferdinand, N. K., Mecklinger, A. and Kray, J. 2008. Error deviance processing in implicit and explicit sequence learning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20: 629-642.
38. Ferguson, M. J. and Bargh, J. A. 2004. How social perception can automatically influence behavior. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8: 33-39.
39. Ferree, T. C., Luu, P. L., Russell, J. and Tucker, D. M. 2001. Scalp electrode impedance, infection risk, and EEG data quality. Clinical Neurophysiology, 112: 536-544.
40. Fiebach, C. J., Schlesewsky, M. and 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.
41. Fiser, J. and Aslin, R. N. 2002. Statistical learning of higher-order temporal structure from visual shape sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 28: 458-467.
42. Friederici, A. D. 1995. The time course of syntactic activation during language processing: A model based on neuropsychological and neurophysiological data. Brain and Language, 50: 259-281.
43. Friederici, A. D., Hahne, A. and Mecklinger, A. 1996. Temporal structure of syntactic parsing: Early and late event-related brain potential effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22: 1219-1248.
44. Friederici, A. D., Pfeifer, E. and Hahne, A. 1993. Event-related brain potentials during natural speech processing: Effects of semantic, morphological and syntactic violations. Cognitive Brain Research, 1: 183-192.
45. Friederici, A. D., Steinhauer, K. and Pfeifer, E. 2002. Brain signatures of artificial language processing: Evidence challenging the critical period hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99: 529-534.
46. Frigo, L. and McDonald, J. L. 1998. Properties of phonological markers that affect the acquisition of gender-like subclasses. Journal of Memory and Language, 39: 218-245.
47. Gómez, R. L. 2002. Variability and detection of invariant structure. Psychological Science, 13: 431-436.
48. Gómez, R. L. and Gerken, L. A. 2000. Infant artificial language learning and language acquisition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4: 178-186.
49. Gouvea, A. C., Phillips, C., Kazanina, N. and Poeppel, D. 2010. The linguistic processes underlying the P600. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25: 149-188.
50. Green, T. R. G. 1979. Necessity of syntax markers: 2 experiments with artificial languages. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18: 481-496.
51. Gunter, T. C., Stowe, L. A. and Mulder, G. 1997. When syntax meets semantics. Psychophysiology, 34: 600-676.
52. Hagoort, P. 2003. How the brain solves the binding problem for language: A neurocomputational model of syntactic processing. NeuroImage, 20: S18-S29.
53. Hagoort, P. 2009. Reflections on the neurobiology of syntax. In D. Bickerton & E. Szathmáry Biological foundations and origin of syntax. Strüngmann Forum Reports 279-296 Cambridge, MA: 3 MIT Press.
54. Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. M. 1994. Brain responses to lexical ambiguity resolution and parsing. In C. Clifton Jr., L. Frazier, & K. Rayner Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 45-80). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
55. Hagoort, P., Brown, C. M. and Groothusen, J. 1993. The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8: 439-484.
56. Hagoort, P., Brown, C. M. and Osterhout, L. 1999. "The neural architecture of syntactic processing". In Neurocognition of language, Edited by: Brown, C. M. and Hagoort, P. 273-316. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
57. Hahne, A. 2001. What's different in second-language processing? Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30: 251-266.
58. Heimbauer, L. A., Conway, C. M., Christiansen, M. H., Beran, M. J., & Owren, M. J. 2010. Grammar rule-based sequence learning by rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). American Journal of Primatology, 72 65.
59. Hoen, M. and Dominey, P. F. 2000. ERP analysis of cognitive sequencing: A left anterior negativity related to structural transformation processing. Neuroreport, 11: 3187-3191.
60. Hoen, M., Golembiowski, M., Guyot, E., Deprez, V., Caplan, D. and Dominey, P. F. 2003. Training with cognitive sequences improves syntactic comprehension in agrammatic aphasics. NeuroReport, 14: 495-499.
61. Hunt, R. H. and Aslin, R. N. 2001. Statistical learning in a serial reaction time task: Access to separable statistical cues by individual learners. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130: 658-680.
62. Jentschke, S. and Koelsch, S. 2009. Musical training modulates the development of syntax processing in children. NeuroImage, 47: 735-744.
63. Johnstone, T. and Shanks, D. R. 1999. Two mechanisms in implicit artificial grammar learning? Comment on Meulemans and Van der Linden (1997). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 25: 524-531.
64. Kaan, E. 2009. "Fundamental syntactic phenomena and their putative relation to the brain". In Biological foundations and origin of syntax: Strüngmann Forum Reports, Edited by: Bickerton, D. and Szathmáry, E. Vol. 3, 117-133. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
65. Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E. and Holcomb, P. 2000. The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15: 159-201.
66. Kaan, E. and Swaab, T. Y. 2003. Electrophysiological evidence for serial sentence processing: A comparison between non-preferred and ungrammatical continuations. Cognitive Brain Research, 3, 17: 621-635.
67. Kamide, Y. 2008. Anticipatory processes in sentence processing. Language and Linguistic Compass, 2: 647-670.
68. Kazmerski, V. A., Blasko, D. G. and Dessalegn, B. G. 2003. ERP and behavioral evidence of individual differences in metaphor comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 31: 673-689.
69. Kim, A. and Osterhout, L. 2005. The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52: 205-255.
70. King, J. W. and 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.
71. Kluender, R. and Kutas, M. 1993. Bridging the gap: Evidence from ERPs on the processing of unbound dependencies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5: 196-214.
72. Knowlton, B. J. and Squire, L. R. 1994. The information acquired during artificial grammar learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20: 79-91.
73. Kuperberg, G. R. 2007. Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research, 1146: 23-49.
74. Kuperberg, G. R., Kreher, D. A., Sitnikova, T., Caplan, D. N. and 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: 223-237.
75. Kuperberg, G. R., Sitnikova, T., Caplan, D. and Holcomb, P. J. 2003. Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences. Cognitive Brain Research, 17: 117-129.
76. Kutas, M. and Hillyard, S. A. 1980. Reading senseless sentences: Brain potential reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207: 203-205.
77. Lau, E., Stroud, C., Plesch, S. and Phillips, C. 2006. The role of structural prediction in rapid syntactic analysis. Brain and Language, 98: 74-88.
78. Lelekov, T., Dominey, P. F. and Garcia-Larrea, L. 2000. Dissociable ERP profiles for processing rules vs instances in a cognitive sequencing task. NeuroReport, 11: 1-4.
79. MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J. and Seidenberg, M. S. 1994. The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101: 676-703.
80. Marcus, G. F., Vijayan, S., Bandi Rao, S. and Vishton, P. M. 1999. Rule learning by seven-month-old infants. Science, 283: 77-80.
81. Meulemans, T. and Van der Linden, M. 1997. Associative chunk strength in artificial grammar learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23: 1007-1028.
82. Misyak, J. B., Christiansen, M. H. and Tomblin, J. B. 2010. Sequential expectations: The role of prediction-based learning in language. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2: 138-153.
83. Miyawaki, K., Sato, A., Yasuda, A., Kumano, H. and Kuboki, T. 2005. Explicit knowledge and intention to learn in sequence learning: An event-related potential study. NeuroReport, 16: 705-708.
84. Morgan, J. L., Meier, R. P. and Newport, E. L. 1987. Structural packaging in the input to language learning: Contributions of prosodic and morphological marking of phrases to the acquisition of language. Cognitive Psychology, 19: 498-550.
85. Mueller, J. L., Bahlmann, J. and Friederici, A. D. 2008. The role of pause cues in language learning: The emergence of event-related potential related to sequence processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20: 892-905.
86. Mueller, J. L., Hahne, A., Fujii, Y. and Friederici, A. D. 2005. Native and nonnative speakers' processing of a miniature version of Japanese as revealed by ERPs. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17: 1229-1244.
87. Münte, T. F., Matzke, M. and Johannes, S. 1997. Brain activity associated with syntactic incongruencies in words and pseudo-words. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 93: 318-329.
88. Neri, P., Luu, J. Y. and Levi, D. M. 2006. Meaningful interactions can enhance visual discrimination of human agents. Nature Neuroscience, 9: 1186-1192.
89. Neville, H., Nicol, J., Barss, A., Forster, K. I. and Garrett, M. I. 1991. Syntactically-based sentence processing classes: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3: 151-165.
90. Nevins, A., Dillon, B., Malhotra, S. and Phillips, C. 2007. The role of feature-number and feature-type in processing Hindi verb agreement violations. Brain Research, 1164: 81-94.
91. Newport, E. L. and Aslin, R. N. 2004. Learning at a distance I: Statistical learning of non-adjacent dependencies. Cognitive Psychology, 48: 127-162.
92. Nissen, M. J. and Bullemer, P. 1987. Attentional requirements of learning: Evidence from performance measures. Cognitive Psychology, 19: 1-32.
93. Niv, Y. and Schoenbaum, G. 2008. Dialogues on prediction errors. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12: 265-272.
94. Oldfield, R. C. 1971. The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9: 97-113.
95. Onnis, L., Christiansen, M. H., Chater, N., & Gómez, R. 2003. Reduction of uncertainty in human sequential learning: Evidence from artificial grammar learning. Alterman R. & Kirsh D., Proceedings of the 25th annual conference of the cognitive science society 886-891. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
96. Onnis, L., Farmer, T. A., Baroni, M., Christiansen, M. H. and Spivey, M. 2008. Generalizable distributional regularities aid fluent language processing: The case of semantic valence tendencies. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 20: 125-152.
97. Onnis, L., Waterfall, H. and Edelman, S. 2008. Learn locally, act globally: Learning language from variation set cues. Cognition, 109: 423-430.
98. Osterhout, L. and 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.
99. Osterhout, L. and Holcomb, P. J. 1992. Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31: 785-806.
100. Osterhout, L., Holcomb, P. J. and 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.
101. Osterhout, L. and Mobley, L. A. 1995. Event-related potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and Language, 34: 739-773.
102. Pacton, S., Perruchet, P., Fayol, M. and Cleeremans, A. 2001. Implicit learning out of the lab: The case of orthographic regularities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130: 401-426.
103. Patel, A. D., Gibson, E., Ratner, J., Besson, M. and Holcomb, P. J. 1998. Processing syntactic relations in language and music: An event-related potential study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10: 717-733.
104. Peña, M., Bonnatti, L., Nespor, M. and Mehler, J. 2002. Signal-driven computations in speech processing. Science, 298: 604-607.
105. Perruchet, P. and Pacton, S. 2006. Implicit learning and statistical learning: One phenomenon, two approaches. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10: 233-238.
106. Phillips, C., Kazanina, N. and Abada, S. 2005. ERP effects of the processing of syntactic long-distance dependencies. Cognitive Brain Research, 22: 407-428.
107. Pickering, M. J. and Garrod, S. 2007. Do people use language production to make predictions during comprehension?. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11: 105-110.
108. Plante, E., Gómez, R. and Gerken, L. 2002. Sensitivity to word order cues by normal and language/learning disabled adults. Journal of Communication Disorders, 35: 453-462.
109. Pothos, E. M. 2007. Theories of artificial grammar learning. Psychological Bulletin, 133: 227-244.
110. Pothos, E. M. and Bailey, T. M. 2000. The role of similarity in artificial grammar learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26: 847-862.
111. Rayner, K. and Well, A. D. 1999. Effects of contextual constraint on eye movements in reading: A further examination. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3: 504-509.
112. Reber, A. S. 1967. Implicit learning of artificial grammars. Journal of Verbal Learning and Behavior, 6: 855-863.
113. Reed, J. and Johnson, P. 1994. Assessing implicit learning with indirect tests: Determining what is learned about sequence structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20: 585-594.
114. Redington, M. and Chater, N. 1996. Transfer in artificial grammar learning: A reevaluation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125: 123-138.
115. Regel, S., Coulson, S. and Gunter, T. C. 2010. The communicative style of a speaker can affect language comprehension? ERP evidence from the comprehension of irony. Brain Research, 1311: 121-135.
116. Regel, S., Gunter, T. C. and Friederici, A. D. 2011. Isn't it ironic? An electrophysiological exploration of figurative language processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23: 277-293.
117. Rossi, S., Gugler, M. F., Hahne, A. and Friederici, A. D. 2005. When word category information encounters morphosyntax: An ERP study. Neuroscience Letters, 384: 228-233.
118. Rüsseler, J., Hennighausen, E., Münte, T. F. and Rösler, F. 2003. Differences in incidental and intentional learning of sensorimotor sequences as revealed by event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Brain Research, 15: 116-126.
119. Rüsseler, J., Hennighausen, E. and Rösler, F. 2001. Response anticipation processes in the learning of a sensorimotor sequence: Evidence from the lateralized readiness potential. Journal of Psychophysiology, 15: 95-105.
120. Rüsseler, J. and Rösler, F. 1999. "Representation and learning of structure in perceptuo-motor event-sequences". In Learning: Rule extraction and representation, Edited by: Friederici, A. and Menzel, R. 117-138. New York: Walter de Gruyter.
121. Rüsseler, J. and Rösler, F. 2000. Implicit and explicit learning of event sequences: Evidence for distinct coding of perceptual and motor representations. Acta Psychologica, 104: 45-67.
122. Saffran, J. R. 2001. Words in a sea of sounds: The output of infant statistical learning. Cognition, 81: 149-169.
123. Saffran, J. R. 2002. Constraints on statistical language learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 47: 172-196.
124. Saffran, J. R. 2003. Statistical learning: Mechanisms and constraints. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12: 110-114.
125. Saffran, J. R., Newport, E. L., Aslin, R. N., Tunick, R. A. and Barrueco, S. 1997. Incidental language learning: Listening (and learning) out of the corner of your ear. Psychological Science, 8: 101-105.
126. Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N. and Newport, E. L. 1996. Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274: 1926-1928.
127. Saffran, J. R., Johnson, E. K., Aslin, R. N. and Newport, E. L. 1999. Statistical learning of tone sequences by human infants and adults. Cognition, 70: 27-52.
128. Schlaghecken, F., Stürmer, B. and Eimer, M. 2000. Chunking processes in the learning of event sequences: Electrophysiological indicators. Memory & Cognition, 28: 821-831.
129. Seidenberg, M. S. and Elman, J. L. 1999. Networks are not 'hidden rules'. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3: 288-289.
130. Silva-Pereyra, J., Conboy, B. T., Klarman, L. and Kuhl, P. K. 2007. Grammatical processing without semantics? An event-related brain potential study of preschoolers using jabberwocky sentences. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19: 1050-1065.
131. Stadler, M. A. 1992. Statistical structure and implicit serial learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory Cognition, 18: 318-327.
132. Steinhauer, K. and Connolly, J. F. 2008. "Event-related potentials in the study of language". In Handbook of the neuroscience of language, Edited by: Stemmer, B. and Whitaker, H. A. 91-104. New York: Elsevier.
133. Tanenhaus, M. K. and Trueswell, J. C. 1995. "Sentence comprehension". In Speech, language, and communication, Edited by: Miller, J. and Eimas, P. 217-262. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
134. Tomblin, J. B., Mainela-Arnold, E. and Zhang, X. 2007. Procedural learning in adolescents with and without specific language impairment. Language Learning and Development, 3: 269-293.
135. Toro, J. M., Sinnett, S. and Soto-Faraco, S. 2005. Speech segmentation by statistical learning depends on attention. Cognition, 97: B25-B34.
136. Tucker, D. M. 1993. Spatial sampling of head electrical fields: The geodesic sensor net. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 87: 145-163.
137. Turk-Browne, N. B., Junge, J. A. and Scholl, B. J. 2005. The automaticity of visual statistical learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134: 522-564.
138. Valian, V. and Coulson, S. 1988. Anchor points in language learning: The role of marker frequency. Journal of Memory and Language, 27: 71-86.
139. Van Berkum, J. J. A. 2008. Understanding sentences in context: What brain waves can tell us. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17: 376-380.
140. Vokey, J. R. and Brooks, L. R. 1992. Salience of item knowledge in learning artificial grammar. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20: 328-344.
141. Wassenaar, M., Brown, C. M. and Hagoort, P. 2005. ERP effects of subject-verb agreement violations in patients with Broca's aphasia. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16: 553-576.
142. Wassenaar, M. and Hagoort, P. 2005. Word-category violations in patients with Broca's aphasia: An ERP study. Brain and Language, 92: 117-137.
143. Weber-Fox, C. M. and Neville, H. J. 1996. Maturational constraints on functional specializations for language processing: ERP and behavioral evidence in bilingual speakers. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8: 231-256.
144. Ye, Z., Luo, Y.-J., Friederici, A. D. and Zhou, X. 2006. Semantic and syntactic processing in Chinese sentence comprehension: Evidence from event-related potentials. Brain Research, 1071: 186-196.