Generalized event knowledge activation during online sentence comprehension

Journal of Memory and Language

Volumn 66, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 545-567

  Metusalem, Ross ^a   Kutas, Marta ^a   Urbach, Thomas P ^a   Hare, Mary ^b   McRae, Ken ^c   Elman, Jeffrey L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Event knowledge; Event related potentials; Expectancy generation; Language comprehension; Psycholinguistics; Sentence processing

Indexed keywords

EID: 84862234183     PISSN: 0749596X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.01.001     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Alba J.W., Hasher L. Is memory schematic?. Psychological Bulletin 1983, 93:203-231.
2. Altmann G.T.M., Kamide Y. Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition 1999, 73:247-264.
3. Altmann G.T.M., Kamide Y. Discourse-mediation of the mapping between language and the visual world: Eye movements and mental representation. Cognition 2009, 111:55-71.
4. Altmann G.T.M., Mirković J. Incrementality and prediction in human sentence processing. Cognitive Science 2009, 33:583-609.
5. Bicknell K., Elman J.L., Hare M., McRae K., Kutas M. Effects of event knowledge in processing verbal arguments. Journal of Memory and Language 2010, 63:489-505.
6. Bornkessel I., Schlesewsky M. The extended argument dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychological Review 2006, 133:787-821.
7. Bransford J.D., Johnson M.K. Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall1. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 1972, 11:717-726.
8. Brysbaert M., New B. Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods 2009, 41:977-990.
9. Camblin C.C., Gordon P.C., Swaab T.Y. The interplay of discourse congruence and lexical association during sentence processing: Evidence from ERPs and eye tracking. Journal of Memory and Language 2007, 56:103-128.
10. Chwilla D.J., Kolk H.H.J. Accessing world knowledge: Evidence from N400 and reaction time priming. Cognitive Brain Research 2005, 25:589-606.
11. Cunningham A.E., Stanovich K.E. Assessing print exposure and orthographic processing skill in children: A quick measure of reading experience. Journal of Educational Psychology 1990, 82:733-740.
12. DeLong K.A., Urbach T.P., Kutas M. Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience 2005, 8:1117-1121.
13. Ditman T., Holcomb P.J., Kuperberg G.R. The contributions of lexico-semantic and discourse information to the resolution of ambiguous categorical anaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes 2007, 22:793-827.
14. Elman J.L. On the meaning of words and dinosaur bones: Lexical knowledge without a lexicon. Cognitive Science 2009, 33:1-36.
15. Federmeier K.D., Kutas M. A rose by any other name: Long-term memory structure and sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language 1999, 41:469-495.
16. Ferretti T.R., Kutas M., McRae K. Verb aspect and the activation of event knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2007, 33:182-196.
17. Frazier, L. (1978). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Unpublished PhD, University of Connecticut.
18. Frazier L. Parsing modifiers: Special purpose routines in the human sentence processing mechanism?. Comprehension processes in reading 1990, 303-330. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, Hillsdale, NJ. D.A. Balota, G.B. Flores D'Arcais (Eds.).
19. Frazier L. Constraint satisfaction as a theory of sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research Special Issue: Sentence processing: I 1995, 24:437-468.
20. Frazier L., Rayner K. Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology 1982, 14:178-210.
21. Friederici A.D., Hahne A., Mecklinger A. Temporal structure of syntactic parsing: Early and late event-related brain potential effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1996, 22:1219-1248.
22. Galambos, J. A. (1982). Normative studies of six characteristics of our knowledge of common activities. Cognitive science tech. rep. 14, Yale University.
23. Graesser A.C., Singer M., Trabasso T. Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review 1994, 101:371-395.
24. Greenhouse S.W., Geisser S. On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika 1959, 24:95-112.
25. Hagoort P., Hald L., Bastiaansen M., Petersson K.M. Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science 2004, 304:438-441.
26. Hald L.A., Steenbeek-Planting E.G., Hagoort P. The interaction of discourse context and world knowledge in online sentence comprehension. Evidence from the N400. Brain Research 2007, 1146:210-218.
27. Hare M., Elman J.L., Tabaczynski T., McRae K. The wind chilled the spectators but the wine just chilled: Sense, structure, and sentence comprehension. Cognitive Science 2009, 33:610-828.
28. Hare M., Jones M., Thomson C., Kelly S., McRae K. Activating event knowledge. Cognition 2009, 111:151-167.
29. Kamide Y., Altmann G.T.M., Haywood S.L. The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 2003, 49:133-156.
30. Kintsch W., Mross E.F. Context effects in word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language 1985, 24:336-349.
31. Kleiman G.M. Sentence frame contexts and lexical decisions: Sentence-acceptability and word-relatedness effects. Memory & Cognition 1980, 8:336-344.
32. Kukona A., Fang S-Y., Aicher K.A., Chen H., Magnuson J.S. The time course of anticipatory constraint integration. Cognition 2011, 119:23-42.
33. Kuperberg G.R. Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research 2007, 1146:23-49.
34. Kuperberg G.R., Caplan D., Sitnikova T., Eddy M., Holcomb P.J. Neural correlates of processing syntactic, semantic, and thematic relationships in sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes 2006, 21:489-530.
35. Kutas M. In the company of other words: Electrophysiological evidence for single-word and sentence context effects. Language and Cognitive Processes 1993, 8:533-572.
36. Kutas M., Federmeier K.D. Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2000, 4:463-470.
37. Kutas M., Federmeier K.D. Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology 2011, 62:621-647.
38. Kutas M., Hillyard S.A. Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science 1980, 207:203-205.
39. Kutas M., Hillyard S.A. Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature 1984, 307:161-163.
40. Kutas M., Lindamood T.E., Hillyard S.A. Word expectancy and event-related brain potentials during sentence processing. Preparatory states and processes 1984, 217-237. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. S. Kornblum, J. Requin (Eds.).
41. Landauer T.K., Foltz P.W., Laham D. Introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes 1998, 25:259-284.
42. Madden C.J., Zwaan R.A. How does verb aspect constrain event representations?. Memory & Cognition 2003, 31:663-672.
43. Matsuki K., Chow T., Hare M., Elman J.L., Scheepers C., McRae K. Event-based plausibility immediately influences on-line language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 2011, 37:913-934.
44. McKoon G., Ratcliff R. Inference during reading. Psychological Review 1992, 99:440-466.
45. McRae K., Hare M., Elman J.L., Ferretti T.R. A basis for generating expectancies for verbs from nouns. Memory & Cognition 2005, 33:1174-1184.
46. McRae K., Spivey-Knowlton M.J., Tanenhaus M.K. Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on-line sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 1998, 38:283-312.
47. Nelson D.L., McEvoy C.L., Schreiber T.A. The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 2004, 36:402-407.
48. Nieuwland M.S., Van Berkum J.J.A. Testing the limits of the semantic illusion phenomenon: ERPs reveal temporary semantic change deafness in discourse comprehension. Cognitive Brain Research 2005, 24:691-701.
49. Nieuwland M.S., Van Berkum J.J.A. When peanuts fall in love: N400 evidence for the power of discourse. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2006, 18:1098-1111.
50. Osterhout L., Holcomb P.J. Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language 1992, 31:785-806.
51. Otten M., 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 Research 2007, 1153:166-177.
52. Rayner K., Carlson M., Frazier L. The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: Eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 1983, 22:358-374.
53. Sanford A.J., Garrod S.C. Understanding written language: Explorations of comprehension beyond the sentence 1981, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.
54. Sanford A.J., Garrod S.C. The role of scenario mapping in text comprehension. Discourse Processes 1998, 26:159-190.
55. Sanford A.J., Leuthold H., Bohan J., Sanford A.J.S. Anomalies at the borderline of awareness: An ERP study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2010, 23:514-523.
56. Schank R.C. Language and memory. Cognitive Science 1980, 4:243-284.
57. Schwanenflugel P.J., LaCount K.L. Semantic relatedness and the scope of facilitation for upcoming words in sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1988, 14:344-354.
58. Seifert C.M., McKoon G., Abelson R.P., Ratcliff R. Memory connections between thematically similar episodes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1986, 12:220-231.
59. Stanovich K.E., Cunningham A.E. Studying the consequences of literacy within a literate society: The cognitive correlates of print exposure. Memory & Cognition 1992, 20:51-68.
60. Traxler M.J., Foss D.J., Seely R.E., Kaup B., Morris R.K. Priming in sentence processing: Intralexical spreading activation, schemas, and situation models. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2000, 29:581-595.
61. van Dijk T.A., Kintsch W. Strategies in discourse comprehension 1983, Academic Press, New York, NJ.
62. Zwaan R.A., Radvansky G.A. Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin 1998, 123:162-185.