Does discourse congruence influence spoken language comprehension before lexical association? Evidence from event-related potentials

Language and Cognitive Processes

Volumn 27, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 698-733

  Boudewyn, Megan A ^a   Gordon, Peter C ^b   Long, Debra ^a   Polse, Lara ^c   Swaab, Tamara Y ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill   (United States)

^c SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Connected speech; Discourse congruence; Lexical association; N400

Indexed keywords

AMPLITUDE MODULATION; ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; DISCOURSE CONGRUENCE; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE ABILITY; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; LEXICAL ASSOCIATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPEECH PERCEPTION; SPEECH RATE; SPOKEN LANGUAGE COMPREHENSION; WORD RECOGNITION;

EID: 84862291585     PISSN: 01690965     EISSN: 14640732     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2011.577980     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Akker, E. and Cutler, A. 2003. Prosodic cues to semantic structure in native and non-native listening. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6(2): 81-96.
2. Albrecht, J. E. and O'Brien, E. J. 1993. Updating a mental model: Maintaining both local and global coherence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory. and Cognition, 19(5): 1061-1070.
3. Altmann, G. and Steedman, M. 1988. Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30: 191-238.
4. Andruski, J. E., Blumstein, S. E. and Burton, M. 1994. The effect of sub-phonetic differences on lexical access. Cognition, 52: 163-187.
5. Barton, S. B. and Sanford, A. J. 1993. A case study of anomaly detection: Shallow semantic processing and cohesion establishment. Memory & Cognition, 21(4): 477-487.
6. Bentin, S., Kutas, M. and Hillyard, S. A. 1993. Electrophysiological evidence for task effects on semantic priming in auditory word processing. Psychophysiology, 30: 161-169.
7. Blutner, R. and Sommer, R. 1988. Sentence processing and lexical access: The influence of the focus-identifying task. Journal of Memory and Language, 27: 359-367.
8. Bolte, J. and Coenen, E. 2002. Is phonological information mapped onto semantic information in a one-to-one manner?. Brain and Language, 81: 384-397.
9. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. and Schlesewsky, M. 2008. An alternative perspective on "semantic P600" effects in language comprehension. Brain Research Reviews, 59: 55-73.
10. Camblin, C. C., Gordon, P. C. and 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.
11. Carroll, P. and Slowiaczek, M. L. 1986. Constraints on semantic priming in reading: A fixation time analysis. Memory & Cognition, 14: 509-522.
12. Cutler, E. A. and Norris, D. 1979. "Monitoring sentence comprehension". In Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic studies, Edited by: Cooper, W. E. and Walker, E. C. T. 113-134. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13. Delong, K. A., Urbach, T. P. and Kutas, M. 2005. Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience, 8(8): 1117-1121.
14. Diaz, M. T. and Swaab, T. Y. 2007. Electrophysiological differentiation of phonological and semantic integration in word and sentence contexts. Brain Research, 1146: 85-100.
15. Domalski, P., Smith, M. E. and Halgren, E. 1991. Cross-modal repetition effects on the N4. Psychological Science, 2: 173-178.
16. Federmeier, K. D. 2007. Thinking ahead: The role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 44: 491-505.
17. Federmeier, K. D. and Kutas, M. 1999. A rose by any other name: Long-term memory structure and sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 41: 469-495.
18. Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G. D. and Ferraro, V. 2002. Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1): 11-15.
19. Francis, W. and Kucera, H. 1982. Frequency analysis of English usage, New York: Houghton Mifflin.
20. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M. and Trabasso, T. 1994. Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101(3): 371-395.
21. Hagoort, P., Brown, C. M. and 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.
22. Hess, D. J., Foss, D. J. and Carroll, P. 1995. Effects of global and local context on lexical processing during language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(1): 62-82.
23. Holcomb, P. J. 1988. Automatic and attentional processing: An event-related brain potential analysis of semantic priming. Brain and Language, 35: 66-85.
24. Holcomb, P. J., Anderson, J. and Grainger, J. 2005. An electrophysiological study of cross-modal repetition priming. Psychophysiology, 42: 493-507.
25. Holcomb, P. J. and Neville, H. J. 1990. Auditory and visual semantic priming in lexical decision: A comparison using event-related brain potentials. Language and Cognitive Processes, 5(4): 281-312.
26. Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
27. Jackendoff, R. 2007. A parallel architecture perspective on language processing. Brain Research, 1146: 2-22.
28. Joyce, C. A., Paller, K. A., Schwartz, T. J. and Kutas, M. 1999. An electrophysiological analysis of modality-specific aspects of word repetition. Psychophysiology, 36: 655-665.
29. Kim, A. and Osterhout, L. 2005. The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory & Language, 52: 205-225.
30. Kintsch, W. 1988. The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2): 163-182.
31. Kiss, G. R., Armstrong, C., Milroy, R., & Piper, J. 1973. An associated thesaurus of English and its computer analysis. In A. J. Aitken, R. Bailey & Hamilton-Smith, The computer and literary studies (pp. 153-165). Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
32. Kolk, H. H. J., Chwilla, D. J., Van Herten, M. and Oor, P. J. W. 2003. Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 85: 1-36.
33. Kuperberg, G. R. 2007. Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research, 1146: 23-49.
34. Kuperberg, G. R., Paczynski, M. and Ditman, T. 2011. Establishing causal coherence across sentences: An ERP study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(5): 1230-1246.
35. 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.
36. Kutas, M. and Hillyard, S. A. 1984. Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307(12): 161-163.
37. Kutas, M. and Hillyard, S. A. 1989. An electrophysiological probe of incidental semantic association. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 1(1): 38-49.
38. Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W. and Laham, D. 1998. An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25: 259-284.
39. MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J. and Seidenberg, M. S. 1994. Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101(4): 676-703.
40. Marslen-Wilson, W. D. 1985. Speech shadowing and speech comprehension. Speech Communication, 4: 55-73.
41. Marslen-Wilson, W. and Tyler, L. K. 1980. The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8: 1-71.
42. Marslen-Wilson, W. and Zwitserlood, P. 1989. Accessing spoken words: The importance of word onsets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15(3): 576-585.
43. McKoon, G. and Ratcliff, R. 1998. Memory-based language processing: Psycholinguistic research in the 1990s. Annual Review Psychology, 49: 25-42.
44. McKoon, G. and Ratcliff, R. 1992. Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99(3): 440-466.
45. Meyer, D. E. and Schvaneveldt, R. W. 1971. Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90(2): 227-234.
46. Morris, R. K. and Folk, J. R. 1998. Focus as a contextual priming mechanism in reading. Memory & Cognition, 26: 1313-1322.
47. Myers, J. L. and O'Brien, E. J. 1998. Accessing the discourse representation during reading. Discourse Processes, 26(2): 131-157.
48. Nakano, H., Saron, C. and Swaab, T. Y. 2010. Speech and span: Working memory capacity impacts the use of animacy but not of world knowledge during spoken sentence comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(12): 2886-2898.
49. Neely, J. H. 1991. "Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories". In Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition, Edited by: Besner, D. and Humphreys, G. W. 264-336. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
50. Nieuwland, M. S. and Van Berkum, J. J. A. 2005. Testing the limits of the semantic illusion phenomenon: ERPs reveal temporary semantic change deafness in discourse comprehension. Cognitive Brain Research, 24: 691-701.
51. Nieuwland, M. S. and Van Berkum, J. J. A. 2006. When peanuts fall in love: N400 evidence for the power of discourse. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(7): 1098-1111.
52. Norris, D., Cutler, A., McQueen, J. M. and Butterfield, S. 2006. Phonological and conceptual activation in speech comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 53: 146-193.
53. Otten, M. and Van Berkum, J. J. A. 2008. Discourse-based word anticipation during language processing: Prediction or priming?. Discourse Processes, 45: 464-496.
54. Praamstra, P. and Stegeman, D. F. 1993. Phonological effects on the auditory N400 event-related brain potential. Cognitive Brain Research, 1: 73-86.
55. Praamstra, P., Meyer, A. S. and Levelt, W. J. M. 1994. Neurophysiological manifestations of phonological processing: Latency variation of a negative ERP component time locked to phonological mismatch. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 6(3): 204-219.
56. Rugg, M. D., Doyle, M. C. and Melan, C. 1993. An event-related potential study of the effects of within- and across-modality word repetition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8: 357-377.
57. Sanford, A. J. and Garrod, S. C. 1998. The role of scenario mapping in text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 26(2&3): 159-190.
58. Sanford, A. J., Leuthold, H., Bohan, J. and Sanford, A. J. S. 2010. Anomalies at the borderline of awareness: An ERP study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(3): 514-523.
59. Sereno, S. C. and Rayner, K. 1992. Fast priming during eye fixations in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18: 173-184.
60. Steinhauer, K., Alter, K. and Friederici, A. D. 1999. Brain potentials indicate immediate use of prosodic cues in natural speech processing. Nature Neuroscience, 2(2): 191-196.
61. Swaab, T. Y., Ledoux, K., Camblin, C. C., & Boudewyn, M. in press. ERPs and language processing. In: S. J. Luck & E. S. Kappenman Oxford handbook of event-related potential components. New York: Oxford University Press.
62. Swinney, D. A. 1979. Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 18(6): 645-659.
63. Swinney, D. A., Onifer, W., Prather, P. and Hirshkowitz, M. 1979. Semantic facilitation across sensory modalities in the processing of individual words and sentences. Memory & Cognition, 7(3): 159-165.
64. Tabossi, P. 1988. Accessing lexical ambiguity in different types of sentential contexts. Journal of Memory and Language, 27: 324-340.
65. Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M. and Sedivy, J. C. 1995. Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268(5217): 1632-1634.
66. Van Berkum, J. J. A. 2009. "The neuropragmatics of "simple" utterance comprehension: An ERP review". In Semantics and pragmatics: From experiment to theory, Edited by: Sauerland, U. and Yatsushiro, K. 276-316. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.
67. Van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C. M., Hagoort, P. and Zwitserlood, P. 2003. Event-related brain potentials reflect discourse-referential ambiguity in spoken language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 40: 235-248.
68. Van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C. M., Zwitserlood, P., Kooijman, V. and Hagoort, P. 2005. Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: Evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning. Memory & Cognition, 31(3): 443-467.
69. Van Berkum, J. J. A., Hagoort, P. and Brown, C. M. 1999. Semantic integration in sentences and discourse: Evidence from the N400. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11(6): 657-671.
70. Van Herten, M., Chwilla, D. J. and Kolk, H. H. J. 2006. When heuristics clash with parsing routines: ERP evidence for conflict monitoring in sentence perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(7): 1181-1197.
71. Van Petten, C. 1993. A comparison of lexical and sentence-level context effects in event-related potentials. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8: 485-531.
72. Van Petten, C., Weckerly, J., McIsaac, H. K. and Kutas, M. 1997. Working memory capacity dissociates lexical and sentential context effects. Psychological Science, 8: 238-242.
73. Williams, J. N. 1988. Constraints upon semantic activation during sentence comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 3(3): 165-206.
74. Zwitserlood, P. 1989. The locus of the effects of sentential-semantic context in spoken-word processing. Cognition, 32: 25-64.