ERPs reveal individual differences in morphosyntactic processing

Neuropsychologia

Volumn 56, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 289-301

  Tanner, Darren ^a   Van Hell, Janet G ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

^b PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

ERPs; Familial sinistrality; Individual differences; LAN; Morphosyntax; N400; P600

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; CONTROLLED STUDY; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; EXECUTIVE FUNCTION; FEMALE; GRAMMAR; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE ABILITY; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; LEFT HEMISPHERE; MALE; MORPHOSYNTACTIC PROCESSING; NEUROPHYSIOLOGY; RIGHT HEMISPHERE; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAM; NORMAL HUMAN; QUESTIONNAIRE; STIMULUS RESPONSE;

ERPS; FAMILIAL SINISTRALITY; INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES; LAN; MORPHOSYNTAX; N400; P600;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BRAIN MAPPING; COMPREHENSION; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED POTENTIALS; FEMALE; HUMANS; INDIVIDUALITY; LANGUAGE; MALE; SEMANTICS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84896703585     PISSN: 00283932     EISSN: 18733514     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.02.002     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. Allen M., Badecker W., Osterhout L. Morphological analysis in sentence processing: An ERP study. Language and Cognitive Processes 2003, 18:405-430.
2. Barca L., Pezzulo G. Unfolding visual lexical decision in time. PLoS One 2012, 7(4):e35932. 10.1371/journal.pone.0035932.
3. Batterink L., Neville H. The human brain processes syntax in the absence of conscious awareness. Journal of Neuroscience 2013, 33:8528-8533. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0618-13.2013.
4. Bever T.G., Carrithers C., Cowart W., Townsend D.J. Language processing and familial handedness. From Reading to Neurons 1989, 331-360. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. A.M. Galaburda (Ed.).
5. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I., Schlesewsky M. An alternative perspective on "semantic P600" effects in language comprehension. Brain Research Reviews 2008, 59:55-73. 10.1016/j.brainresrev.2008.05.003.
6. Brouwer H., Fitz H., Hoeks J. Getting real about semantic illusions: Rethinking the functional role of the P600 in language comprehension. Brain Research 2012, 1446:127-143. 10.1016/j.brainres.2012.01.055.
7. Coulson S., King J.W., Kutas M. Expect the unexpected: Even-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes 1998, 13:21-58.
8. 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. 10.1038/nn1504.
9. Deutsch A., Bentin S. Syntactic and semantic factors in processing gender agreement in Hebrew: Evidence from ERPs and eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 2001, 45:200-224. 10.1006/jmla.2000.2768.
10. Dillon B., Nevins A., Austin A.C., Phillips C. Syntactic and semantic predictors of tense in Hindi: An ERP investigation. Language and Cognitive Processes 2012, 27:313-344.
11. Eriksen B.A., Eriksen C.W. Effects of noise letters upon identification of a target letter in a non-search task. Perception & Psychophysics 1974, 16:142-149.
12. Federmeier K.D. Thinking ahead: The role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. Psychophysiology 2007, 44:491-505. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00531.x.
13. 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. 10.1006/jmla.1999.2660.
14. Federmeier K.D., Wlotko E.W., De Ochoa-Dewald E., Kutas M. Multiple effects of sentential constraint on word processing. Brain Research 2007, 1146:75-84. 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.06.101.
15. Frenzel S., Schlesewsky M., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I. Conflicts in language processing: A new perspective on the N400-P600 distinction. Neuropsychologia 2011, 49:574-579. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.12.003.
16. Friederici A.D. Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2002, 6:78-84.
17. Friederici A.D., Hahne A., Mecklinger A. Temporal structure of syntactic processing: Early and late event-related potential effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1996, 22:1219-1248.
18. Friederici A.D., Steinhauer K., Pfeifer E. Brain signatures of artificial language processing: Evidence challenging the critical period hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 2002, 99:529-534.
19. Friederici A.D., Weissenborn J. Mapping sentence form onto meaning: The syntax-semantic interface. Brain Research 2007, 1146:50-58. 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.08.038.
20. Gouvea A.C., Phillips C., Kazanina N., Poeppel D. The linguistic processes underlying the P600. Language and Cognitive Processes 2010, 25:149-188. 10.1080/01690960902965951.
21. Hagoort P. How the brain solves the binding problem for language: A neurocomputational model of syntactic processing. NeuroImage 2003, 20:18-29. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.1796.
22. Hagoort P., Brown C.M. ERP effects of listening to speech compared to reading: The P600/SPS to syntactic violations in spoken sentences and rapid serial visual presentation. Neuropsychologia 2000, 38:1531-1549.
23. Hagoort P., Brown C.M., Groothusen J. The syntactic positive shift as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 1993, 8:439-484.
24. Hagoort P., Hald L., Bastiaansen M., Petersson K.M. Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science 2004, 304:438-441. 10.1126/science.1095455.
25. Hagoort P., Wassenaar M., Brown C.M. Syntax-related ERP-effects in Dutch. Cognitive Brain Research 2003, 16:38-50.
26. Hahne A., Jescheniak J.D. What[U+05F3]s left if the Jabberwock gets the semantics? An ERP investigation into semantic and syntactic processes during auditory sentence comprehension. Cognitive Brain Research 2001, 11:199-212.
27. Hancock R., Bever T.G. Genetic factors and normal variation in the organization of language. Biolinguistics 2013, 7:75-95.
28. Helenius P., Salmelin R., Service E., Connolly J.F. Distinct time courses of word and context comprehension in the left temporal cortex. Brain 1998, 121:1133-1142.
29. Helenius P., Salmelin R., Service E., Connolly J.F., Leinonen S., Lyytinen H. Cortical activation during spoken-word segmentation in nonreading-impaired and dyslexic adults. Journal of Neuroscience 2002, 22:2936-2944.
30. Hoeks J.C.J., Stowe L.A., Doedens G. Seeing words in context: The interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading. Cognitive Brain Research 2004, 19:59-73. 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2003.10.022.
31. Jasper H.H. The ten-twenty system of the International Federation. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 1958, 10:371-375.
32. Kaan E., Harris A., Gibson E., Holcomb P.J. The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes 2000, 15:159-201.
33. Kaan E., Swaab T.Y. Electrophysiological evidence for serial sentence processing: A comparison between non-preferred and ungrammatical continuations. Cognitive Brain Research 2003, 17:621-635.
34. Kaan E., Swaab T.Y. Repair, revision and complexity in syntactic analysis: An electrophysiological differentiation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2003, 15:98-110.
35. Kee D.W., Bathurst K., Hellige J.B. Laterlized interference of repetitive finger tapping: Influence of familial handedness, cognitive load and verbal production. Neuropsychologia 1983, 21:617-624.
36. Kim A., Osterhout L. The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language 2005, 52:205-225. 10.1016/j.jml.2004.10.002.
37. Kim A., Sikos L. Conflict and surrender during sentence processing: An ERP study of syntax-semantics interaction. Brain and Language 2011, 118:15-22. 10.1016/j.bandl.2011.03.002.
38. Kos M., van den Brink D., Hagoort P. Individual variation in the late positive complex to semantic anomalies. Frontiers in Psychology 2012, 3(318). 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00318.
39. Kuperberg G.R. Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research 2007, 1146:23-49. 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.12.063.
40. Kuperberg G.R., Kreher D.A., Sitnikova T., Caplan D., Holcomb P.J. The role of animacy and thematic relationships in processing active English sentences: Evidence from event-related potentials. Brain and Language 2007, 100:223-237. 10.1016/j.bandl.2005.12.006.
41. Kutas M., Federmeier K. 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. 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123.
42. Kutas M., Hillyard S.A. Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic anomaly. Science 1980, 207:203-205.
43. Kutas M., Hillyard S.A. Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature 1984, 307:161-163.
44. Kutas M., Van Petten C.K., Besson M. Event-related potential asymmetries during the reading of sentences. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 1988, 69:218-233.
45. Lau E.F., Phillips C., Poeppel D. A cortical network for semantics: (de)constructing the N400. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2008, 9:920-933. 10.1038/nrn2532.
46. MacDonald M.C., Christiansen M.H. Reassessing working memory: Comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996). Psychological Review 2002, 109:35-54. 10.1037//0033-295X.109.1.35.
47. Mancini S., Molinaro N., Rizzi L., Carreiras M. A person is not a number: Discourse involvement in subject-verb agreement computation. Brain Research 2011, 1410:64-76. 10.1016/j.brainres.2011.06.055.
48. McKeever W.F., Seitz K.S., Hoff A.L., Marino M.F., Diehl J.A. Interacting sex and familial sinistrality characteristics influence both language lateralization and spatial ability in right handers. Neuropsychologia 1983, 21:661-668.
49. McLaughlin J., Tanner D., Pitkänen I., Frenck-Mestre C., Inoue K., Valentine G., et al. Brain potentials reveal discrete stages of L2 grammatical learning. Language Learning 2010, 60:123-150.
50. Molinaro N., Barber H., Carreiras M. Grammatical agreement processing in reading: ERP findings and future directions. Cortex 2011, 47:908-930. 10.1016/j.cortex.2011.02.019.
51. Molinaro N., Vespignani F., Job R. A deeper reanalysis of a superficial feature: An ERP study on agreement violations. Brain Research 2008, 1228:161-176. 10.1016/j.brainres.2008.06.064.
52. Morgan-Short K., Steinhauer K., Sanz C., Ullman M.T. Explicit and implicit second language training differentially affect the achievement of native-like brain activation patterns. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2012, 24:933-947.
53. Nakano H., Saron C., Swaab T.Y. Speech and span: Working memory capacity impacts the use of animacy but not of world knowledge during spoken sentence comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2010, 22:2886-2898. 10.1162/jocn.2009.21400.
54. Nevins A., Dillon B., Malhotra S., Phillips C. The role of feature-number and feature-type in processing Hindi verb agreement violations. Brain Research 2007, 1164:81-94.
55. Nieuwland M.S., Van Berkum J.J.A. The interplay between semantic and referential aspects of anaphoric noun phrase resolution: Evidence from ERPs. Brain and Language 2008, 106:119-1131. 10.1016/j.bandl.2008.05.001.
56. Nieuwland M.S., Martin A.E., Carreiras M. Event-related brain potential evidence for animacy processing asymmetries during sentence comprehension. Brain and Language 2013, 126:151-158. 10.1016/j.bandl.2013.04.005.
57. Oines, L., Miyake, A., & Kim, A. (2012). Individual differences in verbal working memory predict reanalysis vs. integration in syntax-semantics conflict scenarios. Poster presented at the Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Procesing Conference. Riva del Garda, Italy.
58. Oldfield R.C. The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologia 1971, 9:97-113.
59. Osterhout L. On the brain response to syntactic anomalies: Manipulations of word position and word class reveal individual differences. Brain and Language 1997, 59:494-522.
60. Osterhout L., Holcomb P.J., Swinney D.A. Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: Evidence for the application of verb information during parsing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1994, 28:786-803.
61. Osterhout L., Kim A., Kuperberg G.R. The neurobiology of sentence comprehension. The Cambridge handbook of Psycholinguistics 2012, 365-389. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. M. Spivey, M. Joannisse, K. McCrae (Eds.).
62. Osterhout L., Mckinnon R., Bersick M., Corey V. On the language-specificity of the brain response to syntactic anomalies: Is the syntactic positive shift a member of the P300 family?. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1996, 8:507-526.
63. Osterhout L., McLaughlin J., Kim A., Greewald R., Inoue K. Sentences in the brain: Event-related potentials as real-time reflections of sentence comprehension and language learning. The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eyetracking-ERPs, and beyond 2004, 271-308. Psychology Press, New York. M. Carreiras, C. Clifton (Eds.).
64. Osterhout L., Mobley L. Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and Language 1995, 34:739-773.
65. Osterhout L., Nicol J. On the distinctiveness, independence, and time course of the brain responses to syntactic and semantic anomalies. Language and Cognitive Processes 1999, 14:283-317.
66. Paczynski M., Kuperberg G.R. Multiple influences of semantic memory on sentence processing: Distinct effects of semantic relatedness on violations of real-world event/state knowledge and animacy selection restrictions. Journal of Memory and Language 2012, 67:426-448. 10.1016/j.jml.2012.07.003.
67. Pakulak E., Neville H.J. Proficiency differences in syntactic processing of monolingual native speakers indexed by event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2010, 22:2728-2744.
68. Prat C.S. The brain basis of individual differences in language comprehension abilities. Language and Linguistics Compass 2011, 5:635-649. 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00303.x.
69. Pylkkänen L., McElree B. An MEG study of silent meaning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2007, 19:1905-1921. 10.1162/jocn.2007.19.11.1905.
70. Rayner K., Clifton C. Language processing in reading and speech perception is fast and incremental: Implications for event-related potential research. Biological Psychology 2009, 80:4-9. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2008.05.002.
71. Rodriguez-Fornells A., Clahsen H., Lleó C., Zaake W., Münte T.F. Event-related brain responses to morphological violations in Catalan. Cognitive Brain Research 2001, 11:47-58.
72. Service E., Helenius P., Maury S., Salmelin R. Localization of syntactic and semantic brain responses using magnetoencephalography. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2007, 19:1193-1205. 10.1162/jocn.2007.19.7.1193.
73. Severens E., Jansma B.M., Hartsuiker R.J. Morphophonological influences on the comprehension of subject-verb agreement: An ERP study. Brain Research 2008, 1228:135-144. 10.1016/j.brainres.2008.05.092.
74. Silva-Pereyra J.F., Carreiras M. An ERP study of agreement features in Spanish. Brain Research 2007, 1185:201-211. 10.1016/j.brainres.2007.09.029.
75. Steinhauer K., White E.J., Drury J.E. Temporal dynamics of late second language acquisition: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Second Language Research 2009, 25:13-41. 10.1177/0267658308098995.
76. Tanner, D., Inoue, K., & Osterhout, L. Brain-based individual differences in on-line L2 grammatical comprehension. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, , in press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1366728913000370.
77. Tanner D., Mclaughlin J., Herschensohn J., Osterhout L. Individual differences reveal stages of L2 grammatical acquisition: ERP evidence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 2013, 16:367-382. 10.1017/S1366728912000302.
78. Townsend D.J., Bever T.G. Sentence comprehension: The integration of rules and habits 2001, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
79. Townsend D.J., Carrithers C., Bever T.G. Familial handedness and access to words, meaning, and syntax during sentence comprehension. Brain and Language 2001, 78:308-331. 10.1006/brln.2001.2469.
80. Ullman M.T. Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition 2004, 92:231-270.
81. Unsworth N., Heitz R.P., Schrock J., Engle R.W. An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods 2005, 37:498-505.
82. Van Berkum J.J.A., Hagoort P., Brown C.M. Semantic integration in sentences and discourse: Evidence from the N400. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1999, 11:657-671.
83. Van de Meerendonk N., Kolk H.H.J., Vissers C.T.W.M., Chwilla D.J. Monitoring in language perception: Mild and strong conflicts elicit different ERP patterns. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2010, 22:67-82.
84. Van Herten M., Chwilla D.J., Kolk H.H.J. When heuristics clash with parsing routines: ERP evidence for conflict monitoring in sentence perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2006, 18:1181-1197. 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.7.1181.
85. Van Petten C., Luka B.J. Neural localization of semantic context effects in electromagnetic and hemodynamic studies. Brain and Language 2006, 97:279-293. 10.1016/j.bandl.2005.11.003.
86. Van Petten C., Luka B.J. Prediction during language comprehension: Benefits, costs, and ERP components. International Journal of Psychophysiology 2012, 83:176-190. 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.09.015.
87. Wlotko E.W., Federmeier K.D. So that[U+05F3]s what you meant! Event-related potentials reveal multiple aspects of context use during construction of message-level meaning. NeuroImage 2012, 62(1):356-366. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.054.
88. Ye Z., Zhou X. Involvement of cognitive control in sentence comprehension: Evidence from ERPs. Brain Research 2008, 1203:103-115. 10.1016/j.brainres.2008.01.090.
89. Zhang Y., Li P., Piao Q., Liu Y., Huang Y., Shu H. Syntax does not necessarily precede semantics in sentence processing: ERP evidence from Chinese. Brain and Language 2013, 126:8-19. 10.1016/j.bandl.2013.04.001.