Dissociating N400 effects of prediction from association in single-word contexts

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 484-502

  Lau, Ellen F ^a,b,c   Holcomb, Phillip J ^b   Kuperberg, Gina R ^a,b  

^a MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b TUFTS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMPLITUDE MODULATION; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; LATENT PERIOD; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEMANTICS; STIMULUS RESPONSE; TASK PERFORMANCE; WAVEFORM; WORD RECOGNITION;

EID: 84873124167     PISSN: 0898929X     EISSN: 15308898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1162/jocn_a_00328     Document Type: Article

References (94)

1. Anderson, J. E., & Holcomb, P. J. (1995). Auditory and visual semantic priming using different stimulus onset asynchronies: An event-related brain potential study. Psychophysiology, 32, 177-190.
2. Becker, C. A. (1980). Semantic context effects in visual word recognition: An analysis of semantic strategies. Memory & Cognition, 8, 493-512.
3. Boudewyn, M. A., Gordon, P. C., Long, D., Polse, L., & Swaab, T. Y. (2012). Does discourse congruence influence spoken language comprehension before lexical association? Evidence from event-related potentials. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27, 698-733.
4. Brown, C. M., Hagoort, P., & Chwilla, D. J. (2000). An event-related brain potential analysis of visual word priming effects. Brain and Language, 72, 158-190.
5. Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kucera 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, 41, 977-990.
6. 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.
7. Carreiras, M., Gillon-Dowens, M., Vergara, M., & Perea, M. (2009). Are vowels and consonants processed differently? ERP evidence with a delayed letter paradigm. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 275-288.
8. Carroll, P., & Slowiaczek, M. L. (1986). Constraints on semantic priming in reading: A fixation time analysis. Memory & Cognition, 14, 509-522.
9. Chwilla, D. J., Hagoort, P., & Brown, C.M. (1998). Themechanism underlying backward priming in a lexical decision task: Spreading activation versus semantic matching. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 51, 531-560.
10. Chwilla, D. J., Kolk, H. H., & Mulder, G. (2000). Mediated priming in the lexical decision task: Evidence from event-related potentials and reaction time. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 314-341.
11. Coulson, S., Federmeier, K. D., Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (2005). Right hemisphere sensitivity to word-and sentence-level context: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 129-147.
12. Coulson, S., & Kutas, M. (2001). Getting it: Human event-related brain response to jokes in good and poor comprehenders. Neuroscience Letters, 316, 71-74.
13. Coulson, S., & Van Petten, C. (2007). A special role for the right hemisphere in metaphor comprehension? Brain Research, 1146, 128-145.
14. de Groot, A. M. B. (1984). Primed lexical decision: Combined effects of the proportion of related prime-target pairs and the stimulus-onset asynchrony of prime and target. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Series A, Human Experimental Psychology, 36, 253-280.
15. Deacon, D., Uhm, T. J., Ritter, W., Hewitt, S., & Dynowska, A. (1999). The lifetime of automatic semantic priming effects may exceed two seconds. Cognitive Brain Research, 7, 465-472.
16. DeLong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., Groppe, D. M., & Kutas, M. (2011). Overlapping dual ERP responses to low cloze probability sentence continuations. Psychophysiology, 48, 1203-1207.
17. DeLong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2005). Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 1117-1121.
18. Delorme, A., & Makeig, S. (2004). EEGLAB: An open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 134, 9-21.
19. den Heyer, K., Briand, K., & Dannenbring, G. L. (1983). Strategic factors in a lexical-decision task: Evidence for automatic and attention-driven processes. Memory & Cognition, 11, 374-381.
20. Dikker, S. (2010). Predicting and parsing language in time and space. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
21. Dikker, S., Rabagliati, H., & Pylkkänen, L. (2009). Sensitivity to syntax in visual cortex. Cognition, 110, 293-321.
22. Ditman, T., Holcomb, P. J., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2007). The contributions of lexico-semantic and discourse information to the resolution of ambiguous categorical anaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 793-827.
23. Federmeier, K. D. (2007). Thinking ahead: The role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 44, 491-505.
24. Federmeier, K. D., & Kutas, M. (1999). A rose by any other name: Long-term memory structure and sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 469-495.
25. Federmeier, K. D., Kutas, M., & Schul, R. (2010). Age-related and individual differences in the use of prediction during language comprehension. Brain and Language, 115, 149-161.
26. Federmeier, K. D., Mai, H., & Kutas, M. (2005). Both sides get the point: Hemispheric sensitivities to sentential constraint. Memory and Cognition, 33, 871-886.
27. Federmeier, K. D., Wlotko, E. W., De Ochoa-Dewald, E., & Kutas, M. (2007). Multiple effects of sentential constraint on word processing. Brain Research, 1146, 75-84.
28. Fiebach, C. J., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2001). Syntactic working memory and the establishment of filler-gap dependencies: Insights from ERPs and fMRI. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 321-338.
29. Franklin, M. S., Dien, J., Neely, J. H., Huber, E., & Waterson, L. D. (2007). Semantic priming modulates the N400, N300, and N400RP. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118, 1053-1068.
30. Gerrig, R. J., & McKoon, G. (1998). The readiness is all: The functionality of memory-based text processing. Discourse Processes, 26, 67-86.
31. Grainger, J., & Holcomb, P. J. (2009). Watching the word go by: On the time-course of component processes in visual word recognition. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3, 128-156.
32. Greenhouse, S. W., & Geisser, S. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika, 24, 95-112.
33. Groppe, D. M., Choi, M., Huang, T., Schilz, J., Topkins, B., Urbach, T. P., et al. (2010). The phonemic restoration effect reveals pre-N400 effect of supportive sentence context in speech perception. Brain Research, 1361, 54-66.
34. Groppe, D. M., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2011). Mass univariate analysis of event-related brain potentials/fields I: A critical tutorial review. Psychophysiology, 48, 1711-1725.
35. Grossi, G. (2006). Relatedness proportion effects on masked associative priming: An ERP study. Psychophysiology, 43, 21-30.
36. Holcomb, P. J. (1988). Automatic and attentional processing: An event-related brain potential analysis of semantic priming. Brain and Language, 35, 66-85.
37. Holcomb, P. J., & Grainger, J. (2006). On the time-course of visual word recognition: An ERP investigation using masked repetition priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1631-1643.
38. Holcomb, P. J., Grainger, J., & O'Rourke, T. (2002). An electrophysiological study of the effects of orthographic neighborhood size on printed word perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 938-950.
39. Holcomb, P. J., Reder, L., Misra, M., & Grainger, J. (2005). The effects of prime visibility on ERP measures of masked priming. Cognitive Brain Research, 24, 155-172.
40. Hutchison, K. A. (2007). Attentional control and the relatedness proportion effect in semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 645-652.
41. Hutchison, K. A., Neely, J. H., & Johnson, J. D. (2001). With great expectations, can two "wrongs" prime a "right"? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1451-1463.
42. Jonides, J., Lewis, R. L., Nee, D. E., Lustig, C. A., Berman, M. G., & Moore, K. S. (2007). The mind and brain of short-term memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 193-224.
43. Kiefer, M. (2002). The N400 is modulated by unconsciously perceived masked words: Further evidence for an automatic spreading activation account of N400 priming effects. Cognitive Brain Research, 13, 27-39.
44. Kim, A., & Lai, V. (2012). Rapid interactions between lexical-semantic and word-form analysis during word recognition in context: Evidence from ERPs. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24, 1104-1112.
45. 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.
46. Kreher, D. A., Holcomb, P. J., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2006). An electrophysiological investigation of indirect semantic priming. Psychophysiology, 43, 550-563.
47. Kuperberg, G. R. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research, 1146, 23-49.
48. Kuperberg, G. R., Paczynski, M., & Ditman, T. (2011). Establishing causal coherence across sentences: An ERP study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 1230-1246.
49. Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 621-647.
50. Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 463-470.
51. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307, 161-163.
52. Kutas, M., Lindamood, T. E., & Hillyard, S. A. (1984). Word expectancy and event-related brain potentials during sentence processing. In S. Kornblum & J. Requin (Eds.), Preparatory states and processes (pp. 217-237). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
53. Kutas, M., & Van Petten, C. (1988). Event-related brain potential studies of language. Advances in Psychophysiology, 3, 139-187.
54. Kutas, M., & Van Petten, C. (1994). Psycholinguistics electrified: Event-related potential investigations. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 83-143). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
55. Kutas, M., Van Petten, C., & Kluender, R. (2006). Psycholinguistics electrified II: 1994-2005. In M. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 659-724). New York: Elsevier.
56. Larson, M. J., Kaufman, D. A. S., & Perlstein, W. M. (2009). Neural time course of conflict adaptation effects on the Stroop task. Neuropsychologia, 47, 663-670.
57. Lau, E. F., Phillips, C., & Poeppel, D. (2008). A cortical network for semantics: (De)constructing the N400. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, 920-933.
58. Lau, E. F., Gramfort, A., Burns, S., Delaney-Busch, N., Fields, E., Fanucci, K., et al. (2012). Localizing N400 effects of prediction with simultaneous EEG-MEG. Presented at the 19th Meeting of the Cognitive Neuroscience Society.
59. Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1987). Functional parallelism in spoken word-recognition. Cognition, 25, 71-102.
60. Molinaro, N., & Carreiras, M. (2010). Electrophysiological evidence of interaction between contextual expectation and semantic integration during the processing of collocations. Biological Psychology, 83, 176-190.
61. Morris, R. K. (1994). Lexical and message-level sentence context effects on fixation times in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20, 92-103.
62. Morris, R. K., & Folk, J. R. (1998). Focus as a contextual priming mechanism in reading. Memory & Cognition, 26, 1313-1322.
63. Myers, J. L., & O'Brien, E. J. (1998). Accessing the discourse representation during reading. Discourse Processes, 26, 131-157.
64. Neely, J. H. (1977). Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 106, 226-254.
65. Neely, J. H. (1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. In D. Besner & G. W. Humphreyes (Eds.), Basic processes in reading (pp. 264-336). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
66. Neely, J. H., Keefe, D. E., & Ross, K. L. (1989). Semantic priming in the lexical decision task: Roles of prospective prime-generated expectancies and retrospective semantic matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 1003-1019.
67. Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (2004). The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 402-407.
68. Nieuwland, M. S., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2008). When the truth is not too hard to handle: An event-related potential study on the pragmatics of negation. Psychological Science, 19, 1213-1218.
69. Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97-113.
70. Oostenveld, R., Fries, P., Maris, E., & Schoffelen, J. M. (2011). FieldTrip: Open source software for advanced analysis of MEG, EEG, and invasive electrophysiological data. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, 156869.
71. Otten, M., & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2007). What makes a discourse constraining? A comparison between the effects of discourse message and priming on the N400. Brain Research, 1153, 166-177.
72. Otten, M., & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2008). Discourse-based word anticipation during language processing: Prediction or priming? Discourse Processes, 45, 464-496.
73. Otten, M., & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2009). Does working memory capacity affect the ability to predict upcoming words in the discourse? Brain Research, 1291, 92-101.
74. Paczynski, M., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2012). Distinct effects of semantic relatedness on real-world event knowledge and selection restrictions during online processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory & Language, 67, 426-448.
75. Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola symposium (pp. 55-85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
76. R Development Core Team. (2010). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org/.
77. Roehm, D., Bornkessel-Schlewiesky, I., Roesler, F., & Schlesewsky, M. (2007). To predict or not to predict: Influences of task and strategy on the processing of semantic relations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1259-1274.
78. Sanford, A. J., Leuthold, H., Bohan, J., & Sanford, A. J. S. (2011). Anomalies at the borderline of awareness: An ERP study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 514-523.
79. Staub, A., & Clifton, C., Jr. (2006). Syntactic prediction in language comprehension: Evidence from either. or. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 425.
80. Taylor, W. L. (1953). "Cloze procedure": A new tool for measuring readability. Journalism Quarterly, 30, 415-433.
81. Traxler, M. J., Foss, D. J., Seely, R. E., Kaup, B., & Morris, R. K. (2000). Priming in sentence processing: Intralexical spreading activation, schemas, and situation models. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 581-595.
82. Van Berkum, J. (2009). The neuropragmatics of "simple" utterance comprehension: An ERP review. In U. Sauerland & K. Yatsushiro (Eds.), Semantic and pragmatics: From experiment to theory (pp. 276-316). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
83. Van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C. M., Zwitserlood, P., Kooijman, V., & Hagoort, P. (2005). Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: Evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 443-467.
84. Van Petten, C. (1993). A comparison of lexical and sentence-level context effects in event-related potentials. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 485-531.
85. Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (1990). Interactions between sentence context and word frequency in event-related brain potentials. Memory & Cognition, 18, 380-393.
86. Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (1991). Influences of semantic and syntactic context on open-and closed-class words. Memory & Cognition, 19, 95-112.
87. Van Petten, C., & Luka, B. J. (2006). Neural localization of semantic context effects in electromagnetic and hemodynamic studies. Brain and Language, 97, 279-293.
88. Van Petten, C., & Luka, B. J. (2011). Prediction during language comprehension: Benefits, costs, and ERP components. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 83, 176-190.
89. Van Petten, C., Weckerly, J., McIsaac, H. K., & Kutas, M. (1997). Working memory capacity dissociates lexical and sentential context effects. Psychological Science, 8, 238-242.
90. Vespignani, F., Canal, P., Molinaro, N., Fonda, S., & Cacciari, C. (2010). Predictive mechanisms in idiom comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 1682-1700.
91. West, R. (2003). Neural correlates of cognitive control and conflict detection in the Stroop and digit-location tasks. Neuropsychologia, 41, 1122-1135.
92. Wicha, N. Y. Y., Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2004). Anticipating words and their gender: An event-related brain potential study of semantic integration, gender expectancy, and gender agreement in Spanish sentence reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 1272-1288.
93. Wlotko, E. W., & Federmeier, K. D. (2007). Finding the right word: Hemispheric asymmetries in the use of sentence context information. Neuropsychologia, 45, 3001-3014.
94. Wlotko, E. W., & Federmeier, K. D. (2012). So that's what you meant! Event-related potentials reveal multiple aspects of context use during construction of message-level meaning. Neuroimage, 62, 356-366.