Syntactic context effects in visual word recognition: An MEG study

Mental Lexicon

Volumn 8, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 117-139

  Linzen, Tal ^a   Marantz, Alec ^a,b   Pylkkänen, Liina ^a,b  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NEW YORK UNIVERSITY ABU DHABI   (United Arab Emirates)

Author keywords

Anterior temporal lobe; Argument structure; Information theory; Lexical processing; Magnetoencephalography; Subcategorization frames; Syntax

Indexed keywords

EID: 84894374939     PISSN: 18711340     EISSN: 18711375     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1075/ml.8.2.01lin     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Adachi, Y., Shimogawara, M., Higuchi, M., Haruta, Y. & Ochiai, M. (2001). Reduction of nonperiodical extramural magnetic noise in MEG measurement by continuously adjusted least squares method. IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity, 11, 669-672.
2. Adelman, J. S., Brown, G. D. A., & Quesada, J. F. (2006). Contextual diversity, not word frequency, determines word-naming and lexical decision times. Psychological Science, 17, 814-823.
3. Allen, K., Pereira, F., Botvinick, M., & Goldberg, A. E. (2012). Distinguishing grammatical constructions with fMRI pattern analysis. Brain and Language, 123, 174-182.
4. Arai, M., & Keller, F. (2013). The use of verb-specific information for prediction in sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 525-560.
5. Baayen, R. H. (2010). Demythologizing the word frequency effect: A discriminative learning perspective. The Mental Lexicon, 5, 436-461.
6. Baayen, R. H., Feldman, L. B., & Schreuder, R. (2006). Morphological influences on the recognition of monosyllabic monomorphemic words. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 290-313.
7. Baayen, R. H., Milin, P., Djurdjevi?, D. F., Hendrix, P., & Marelli, M. (2011). An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naive discriminative learning. Psychological Review, 118, 438-481.
8. Baayen, R. H., & Piepenbrock, R. (1995). The CELEX lexical database (Release 2) [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania [Distributor].
9. Baayen, R. H., Wurm, L. H., & Aycock, J. (2007). Lexical dynamics for low-frequency complex words: A regression study across tasks and modalities. The Mental Lexicon, 2, 419-463.
10. Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., & Cortese, M. J. (2006). Visual word recognition: The journey from features to meaning (a travel update). In M. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 285-375). Amsterdam: Academic Press.
11. Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2012). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. Retrieved from http://cran.r-project.org/ package=lme4, R package version 0.999999-0.
12. Bemis, D. K., & Pylkkänen, L. (2011). Simple composition: A magnetoencephalography investigation into the comprehension of minimal linguistic phrases. The Journal of Neuroscience, 31, 2801-2814.
13. Bemis, D. K., & Pylkkänen, L. (2013). Basic linguistic composition recruits the left anterior temporal lobe and left angular gyrus during both listening and reading. Cerebral Cortex, 23, 1859-1873.
14. Beretta, A., Fiorentino, R., & Poeppel, D. (2005). The effects of homonymy and polysemy on lexical access: An MEG study. Cognitive Brain Research, 24, 57-65.
15. Bi, Y., Wei, T., Wu, C., Han, Z., Jiang, T., & Caramazza, A. (2011). The role of the left anterior temporal lobe in language processing revisited: Evidence from an individual with ATL resection. Cortex, 47, 575-587.
16. Bird, S., Klein, E., & Loper, E. (2009). Natural language processing with Python. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media.
17. Boguraev, B., & Briscoe, T. (1987). Large lexicons for natural language processing: Utilising the grammar coding system of LDOCE. Computational Linguistics, 13, 203-218.
18. Boland, J. E. (2005). Visual arguments. Cognition, 95, 237-274.
19. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433-436.
20. Brennan, J., Nir, Y., Hasson, U., Malach, R., Heeger, D. J., & Pylkkänen, L. (2012). Syntactic structure building in the anterior temporal lobe during natural story listening. Brain and Language, 120, 163-173.
21. Brennan, J., & Pylkkänen, L. (2012). The time-course and spatial distribution of brain activity associated with sentence processing. Neuroimage, 60, 1139-1148.
22. Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Ku?era 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.
23. Cappelle, B., Shtyrov, Y., & Pulvermüller, F. (2010). Heating up or cooling up the brain: MEG evidence that phrasal verbs are lexical units. Brain and Language, 115, 189-201.
24. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
25. Dale, A. M., Liu, A. K., Fischl, B. R., Buckner, R. L., Belliveau, J. W., Lewine, J. D. & Halgren, E. (2000). Dynamic statistical parametric mapping: Combining fMRI and MEG for highresolution imaging of cortical activity. Neuron, 26, 55-67.
26. Dale, A. M., & Sereno, M. I. (1993). Improved localization of cortical activity by combining EEG and MEG with MRI cortical surface reconstruction: A linear approach. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 162-176.
27. Desikan, R. S., Ségonne, F., Fischl, B., Quinn, B. T., Dickerson, B. C., Blacker, D., Buckner, R. L., Dale, A. M., Maguire, R. P., Hyman, B. T., Albert, M. S., & Killiany, R. J. (2006). An automated labeling system for subdividing the human cerebral cortex on MRI scans into gyral based regions of interest. Neuroimage, 31, 968-980.
28. Dikker, S., Rabagliati, H., & Pylkkänen, L. (2009). Sensitivity to syntax in visual cortex. Cognition, 110, 293-321.
29. Dikker, S., & Pylkkänen, L. (In press). Predicting language: MEG evidence for lexical preactivation. Brain and Language. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.bandl.2012.08.004.
30. Dronkers, N. F., Wilkins, D. P., Van Valin, R. D., Redfern, B. B., & Jaeger, J. J. (2004). Lesion analysis of the brain areas involved in language comprehension. Cognition, 92, 145-177.
31. Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 429-446.
32. Friston, K. (2005). A theory of cortical responses. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 360, 815-836.
33. Garnsey, S. M., Pearlmutter, N. J., Myers, E., & Lotocky, M. A. (1997). The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 58-93.
34. Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (1999). Electrophysiological evidence for two steps in syntactic analysis: Early automatic and late controlled processes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 194-205.
35. Halgren, E., Dhond, R., Christensen, N., Van Petten, C., Marinkovic, K., Lewine, J. D., & Dale, A. M. (2002). N400-like MEG responses modulated by semantic context, word frequency, and lexical class in sentences. Neuroimage, 17, 1101-1116.
36. Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. L. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from building 20 (pp. 111-176). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
37. Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1994). Some key features of Distributed Morphology. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 21, 275-288.
38. Hämäläinen, M., Hari, R., Ilmoniemi, R. J., Knuutila, J., & Lounasmaa, O. V. (1993). Magnetoencephalography-theory, instrumentation, and applications to noninvasive studies of the working human brain. Reviews of Modern Physics, 65, 413-497.
39. Hare, M., McRae, K., & Elman, J. L. (2003). Sense and structure: Meaning as a determinant of verb subcategorization preferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 281-303.
40. Hickok, G., & Poeppel, D. (2007). The cortical organization of speech processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8, 393-402.
41. Humphries, C., Binder, J. R., Medler, D. A., & Liebenthal, E. (2006). Syntactic and semantic modulation of neural activity during auditory sentence comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 665-679.
42. Korhonen, A., Krymolowski, Y., & Briscoe, T. (2006). A large subcategorization lexicon for natural language processing applications. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on language resources and evaluation. Genova, Italy.
43. 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.
44. Mazoyer, B. M., Tzourio, N., Frak, V., Syrota, A., Murayama, N., Levrier, O, Salamon, G., Dehaene, S., Cohen, L., & Mehler, J. (1993). The cortical representation of speech. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 467-479.
45. McDonald, S. A., & Shillcock, R. C. (2001a). Contextual distinctiveness: A new lexical property computed from large corpora. Informatics Research Report EDI-INF-RR-0042, University of Edinburgh.
46. McDonald, S. A., & Shillcock, R. C. (2001b). Rethinking the word frequency effect: The neglected role of distributional information in lexical processing. Language and Speech, 44, 295-323.
47. Melinger, A., & Dobel, C. (2005). Lexically-driven syntactic priming. Cognition, 98, B11-B20.
48. Milin, P., Djurdjevi?, D. F., & Moscoso del Prado Martin, F. (2009). The simultaneous effects of inflectional paradigms and classes on lexical recognition: Evidence from Serbian. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 50-64.
49. Miller, G. A. (1995). WordNet: A lexical database for English. Communications of the ACM, 38, 39-41.
50. Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97-113.
51. Pallier, C., Devauchelle, A. D., & Dehaene, S. (2011). Cortical representation of the constituent structure of sentences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 2522-2527.
52. Pelli, D. G. (1997). The videotoolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437-442.
53. Moscoso del Prado Martin, F., Kosti?, A., & Baayen, R. H. (2004). Putting the bits together: An information theoretical perspective on morphological processing. Cognition, 94, 1-18.
54. Patterson, K., Nestor, P. J., & Rogers, T. T. (2007). Where do you know what you know? The representation of semantic knowledge in the human brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8, 976-987.
55. Pulvermüller, F., Shtyrov, Y., Hasting, A. S., & Carlyon, R. P. (2008). Syntax as a reflex: neurophysiological evidence for early automaticity of grammatical processing. Brain and Language, 104(3), 244-253.
56. Pulvermüller, F., Cappelle, B., & Shtyrov, Y. (2013). Brain basis of meaning, words, constructions, and grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 397-417). Oxford: OUP.
57. Pylkkänen, L., Feintuch, S., Hopkins, E., & Marantz, A. (2004). Neural correlates of the effects of morphological family frequency and family size: An MEG study. Cognition, 91, B35-B45.
58. Pylkkänen, L., Llinas, R., & Murphy, G. (2006). Representation of polysemy: MEG evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1-13.
59. Pylkkänen, L., & Marantz, A. (2003). Tracking the time course of word recognition with MEG. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 187-189.
60. Rastle, K., Harrington, J., & Coltheart, M. (2002). 358,534 nonwords: The ARC nonword database. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 55, 1339-1362.
61. Rao, R. P. N., & Ballard, D. (1999). Predictive coding in the visual cortex: A functional interpretation of some extra-classical receptive-field effects. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 79-87.
62. Rodd, J., Gaskell, G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2002). Making sense of semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 245-266.
63. Rodd, J., Davis, M., & Johnsrude, I. (2005). The neural mechanisms of speech comprehension: fMRI studies of semantic ambiguity. Cerebral Cortex, 15, 1261-1269.
64. Rogers, T. T., Lambon Ralph, M. A., Garrard, P., Bozeat, S., McClelland, J. L., Hodges, J. R., & Patterson, K. (2004). Structure and deterioration of semantic memory: A neuropsychological and computational investigation. Psychological Review, 111, 205-235.
65. Roland, D., & Jurafsky, D. (2002). Verb sense and verb subcategorization probabilities. In P. Merlo & S. Stevenson (Eds.), The lexical basis of sentence processing: Formal, computational, and experimental issues (pp. 325-346). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
66. Schmauder, A. R. (1991). Argument structure frames: A lexical complexity metric? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 49-65.
67. Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (1997). How complex simplex words can be. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 118-139.
68. Shapiro, L. P., Zurif, E., & Grimshaw, J. (1987). Sentence processing and the mental representation of verbs. Cognition, 27, 219-246.
69. Shetreet, E., Friedmann, N., & Hadar, U. (2010). The neural correlates of linguistic distinctions: Unaccusative and unergative verbs. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 2306-2315.
70. Shetreet, E., Palti, D., Friedmann, N., & Hadar, U. (2007). Cortical representation of verb processing in sentence comprehension: Number of complements, subcategorization, and thematic frames. Cerebral Cortex, 17, 1958-1969.
71. Simon, D. A., Lewis, G., & Marantz, A. (2012). Disambiguating form and lexical frequency effects in MEG responses using homonyms. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27, 275-287.
72. Solomyak, O., & Marantz, A. (2009). Lexical access in early stages of visual word processing: A single-trial correlational MEG study of heteronym recognition. Brain and Language, 108, 191-196.
73. Solomyak, O., & Marantz, A. (2010). Evidence for early morphological decomposition in visual word recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 2042-2057.
74. Thompson, C. K., Bonakdarpour, B., Fix, S. C., Blumenfeld, H. K., Parrish, T. B., Gitelman, D. R., & Mesulam, M. M. (2007). Neural correlates of verb argument structure processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1753-1767.
75. Wilson, M. P., & Garnsey, S. M. (2009). Making simple sentences hard: Verb bias effects in simple direct object sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 368-392.
76. Wurm, L. H., Ernestus, M. T. C., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2006). Dynamics of the auditory comprehension of prefixed words: Cohort entropies and conditional root uniqueness points. The Mental Lexicon, 1, 125-146.
77. Yarkoni, T., Speer, N. K., Balota, D. A., McAvoy, M. P., & Zacks, J. M. (2008). Pictures of a thousand words: Investigating the neural mechanisms of reading with extremely rapid event-related fMRI. NeuroImage, 42, 973-987.