Revisiting the incremental effects of context on word processing: Evidence from single-word event-related brain potentials

Psychophysiology

Volumn 52, Issue 11, 2015, Pages 1456-1469

  Payne, Brennan R ^a   Lee, Chia Lin ^b   Federmeier, Kara D ^a  

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

^b NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Event related potentials (ERPs); Lexical processing; Linear mixed effects model; N400; Sentence comprehension

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; BRAIN; COMPREHENSION; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED RESPONSE; FEMALE; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; REACTION TIME; READING; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; BRAIN; COMPREHENSION; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED POTENTIALS; FEMALE; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; MALE; REACTION TIME; READING; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84942982150     PISSN: 00485772     EISSN: 14698986     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/psyp.12515     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Aarts, E., Verhage, M., Veenvliet, J. V., Dolan, C. V., & van der Sluis, S. (2014). A solution to dependency: Using multilevel analysis to accommodate nested data. Nature Neuroscience, 17, 491-496. doi: 10.1038/nn.3648
2. Ahmadi, M., & Quiroga, R. Q. (2013). Automatic denoising of single-trial evoked potentials. NeuroImage, 66, 672-680. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.10.062
3. Altmann, G. T., & Kamide, Y. (2007). The real-time mediation of visual attention by language and world knowledge: Linking anticipatory (and other) eye movements to linguistic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 502-518. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.12.004
4. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390-412. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
5. Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Cortese, M. J., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., ... & Treiman, R. (2007). The English lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445-459. doi: 10.3758/BF03193014
6. Barber, H. A., & Kutas, M. (2007). Interplay between computational models and cognitive electrophysiology in visual word recognition. Brain Research Reviews, 53, 98-123. doi: 10.1016/j.brainresrev.2006.07.002
7. Barr, D. J. (2013). Random effects structure for testing interactions in linear mixed-effects models. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 328. Doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00328.
8. Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255-278. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
9. Bates, D., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., & Baayen, R. (2015). Parsimonious mixed models. Retrieved June 22, 2015, from arXiv:1506.04967
10. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). Lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1-7.
11. Bauer, D. J., & Curran, P. J. (2005). Probing interactions in fixed and multilevel regression: Inferential and graphical techniques. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40, 373-400. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr4003_5
12. Blankertz, B., Lemm, S., Treder, M., Haufe, S., & Müller, K. R. (2011). Single-trial analysis and classification of ERP components-a tutorial. NeuroImage, 56, 814-825. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.06.048
13. Breiman, L. (2001). Statistical modeling: The two cultures (with comments and a rejoinder by the author). Statistical Science, 16, 199-231. doi: 10.1214/ss/1009213726
14. Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A. B., & Kuperman, V. (2014). Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 904-911. doi: 10.3758/s13428-013-0403-5
15. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.
16. Coltheart, M., Davelaar, E., Jonasson, T., & Besner, D. (1977). Access to the internal lexicon. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance VI (pp. 535-555). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
17. Curran, P. J., Bauer D. J., & Willoughby M. T. (2004). Testing main effects and interactions in latent curve analysis. Psychological Methods, 9, 220-237.
18. Cumming, G. (2014). The new statistics why and how. Psychological Science, 25, 7-29. doi: 10.1177/0956797613504966
19. Dambacher, M., Kliegl, R., Hofmann, M., & Jacobs, A. M. (2006). Frequency and predictability effects on event-related potentials during reading. Brain Research, 1084, 89-103. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.02.010
20. Delorme, A., & Makeig, S. (2004). EEGLAB: An open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 134, 9-21. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009
21. Delorme, A., Miyakoshi, M., Jung, T. P., & Makeig, S. (2014). Grand average ERP-image plotting and statistics: A method for comparing variability in event-related single-trial EEG activities across subjects and conditions. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 250, 3-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2014.10.003
22. Federmeier, K. D. (2007). Thinking ahead: The role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 44, 491-505. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00531.x
23. Federmeier, K. D., & Laszlo, S. (2009). Time for meaning: Electrophysiology provides insights into the dynamics of representation and processing in semantic memory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 51, 1-44. doi: 10.1016/S0079-7421(09)51001-8
24. Fischer-Baum, S., Dickson, D. S., & Federmeier, K. D. (2014). Frequency and regularity effects in reading are task dependent: Evidence from ERPs. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 1342-1355. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2014.927067
25. Frank, S. L., Otten, L. J., Galli, G., & Vigliocco, G. (2015). The ERP response to the amount of information conveyed by words in sentences. Brain and Language, 140, 1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2014.10.006
26. Friederici, A. D., Meyer, M., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2000). Auditory language comprehension: An event-related fMRI study on the processing of syntactic and lexical information. Brain and Language, 74, 289-300. doi: 10.1006/brln.2000.2313
27. Gaspar, C. M., Rousselet, G. A., & Pernet, C. R. (2011). Reliability of ERP and single-trial analyses. NeuroImage, 58, 620-629. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.06.052
28. Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
29. Graham, J. W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 549-576. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085530
30. Halgren, E., Dhond, R. P., Christensen, N., Van Petten, C., Marinkovic, K., Lewine, J. D., & Dale, A. M. (2002). N400-like magnetoencephalography responses modulated by semantic context, word frequency, and lexical class in sentences. NeuroImage, 17, 1101-1116. doi: 10.1006/nimg.2002.1268
31. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford.
32. Holcomb, P., 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. doi: 10.1162/089892902760191153
33. Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434-446. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007
34. Johnson, P. C. (2014). Extension of Nakagawa & Schielzeth's R2GLMM to random slopes models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 5, 944-946. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12225
35. Kaan, E., & Swaab, T. Y. (2002). The brain circuitry of syntactic comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 350-356. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01947-2
36. Kamide, Y. (2008). Anticipatory processes in sentence processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2, 647-670. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00072.x
37. Kuperman, V., Dambacher, M., Nuthmann, A., & Kliegl, R. (2010). The effect of word position on eye-movements in sentence and paragraph reading. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1838-1857. doi: 10.1080/17470211003602412
38. Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 463-470. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01560-6
39. 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. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123
40. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1982). The lateral distribution of event-related potentials during sentence processing. Neuropsychologia, 20, 579-590. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(82)90031-8
41. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307, 161-163. doi: 10.1038/307161a0
42. Kutas, M., & Van Petten, C. (1994). Psycholinguistics electrified. In Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 83-143). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
43. Kutas, M., Van Petten, C., & Besson, M, (1988). Event-related potential asymmetries during the reading of sentences, Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 69, 218-233. Doi: 10.1016/0013-4694(88)90131-9
44. Laszlo, S., & Federmeier, K. D. (2007). Better the DVL you know: Acronyms reveal the contribution of familiarity to single word reading. Psychological Science, 18, 122-126.
45. Laszlo, S., & Federmeier, K. D. (2008). Minding the PS, queues, and PXQs: Uniformity of semantic processing across multiple stimulus types. Psychophysiology, 45, 458-466. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00636.x
46. Laszlo, S., & Federmeier, K. D. (2009). A beautiful day in the neighborhood: An event-related potential study of lexical relationships and prediction in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 326-338. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.06.004
47. Laszlo, S., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). The N400 as a snapshot of interactive processing: Evidence from regression analyses of orthographic neighbor and lexical associate effects. Psychophysiology, 48, 176-186. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2010.01058.x
48. Laszlo, S., & Federmeier, K. D. (2014). Never seem to find the time: Evaluating the physiological time course of visual word recognition with regression analysis of single-item event-related potentials. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 642-661. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2013.866259
49. Lazic, S. E. (2010). The problem of pseudoreplication in neuroscientific studies: Is it affecting your analysis? BMC Neuroscience, 11, 1-17. doi: 10.1186/1471-2202-11-5
50. Lee, C. L., & Federmeier, K. D. (2009). Wave-ering: An ERP study of syntactic and semantic context effects on ambiguity resolution for noun/verb homographs. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 538-555. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.08.003
51. Levenshtein, V. I. (1966). Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady, 10, 707-710.
52. Little, R. J., & Rubin, D. B. (2002). Statistical analysis with missing data. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
53. Locker, L., Hoffman, L., & Bovaird, J. A. (2007). On the use of multilevel modeling as an alternative to items analysis in psycholinguistic research. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 723-730. doi: 10.3758/BF03192962
54. Luck, S. J. (2014). An introduction to the event-related potential technique. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
55. MacCallum, R. C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K. J., & Rucker, D. D. (2002). On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods, 7, 19. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.19
56. Marslen-Wilson, W., & Tyler, L. K. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8, 1-71. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(80)90015-3
57. The MathWorks. (2014). MATLAB, signal processing, and statistics toolboxes. Natick, MA: Author.
58. Mazoyer, B. M., Tzourio, N., Frak, V., Syrota, A., Murayama, N., Levrier O., ... & Mehler, J. (1993). The cortical representation of speech. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 467-479.
59. Molinaro, N., Conrad, M., Barber, H. A., & Carreiras, M. (2010). On the functional nature of the N400: Contrasting effects related to visual word recognition and contextual semantic integration. Cognitive Neuroscience, 1, 1-7. doi: 10.1080/17588920903373952
60. Mouraux, A., & Iannetti, G. D. (2008). Across-trial averaging of event-related EEG responses and beyond. Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 26, 1041-1054. doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2008.01.011
61. Nakagawa, S., & Schielzeth, H. (2013). A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4, 133-142. doi: 10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x
62. Payne, B. R., Grison, S., Gao, X., Christianson, K., Morrow, D. G., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. L. (2014). Aging and individual differences in binding during sentence understanding: Evidence from temporary and global syntactic attachment ambiguities. Cognition, 130, 157-173. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.10.005
63. Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437-448. doi: 10.3102/10769986031004437
64. Quiroga, R. Q., & Garcia, H. (2003). Single-trial event-related potentials with wavelet denoising. Clinical Neurophysiology, 114, 376-390. doi: 10.1016/S1388-2457(02)00365-6
65. Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1457-1506. doi: 10.1080/17470210902816461
66. Shmueli, G. (2010). To explain or to predict? Statistical Science, 25, 289-310. doi: 10.1214/10-STS330
67. Singer, J. D. (1998). Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models, hierarchical models, and individual growth models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 23, 323-355. doi: 10.2307/1165280
68. Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195152968.001.0001
69. Smith, N. J., & Kutas, M. (2015a). Regression-based estimation of ERP waveforms: I. The rERP framework. Psychophysiology, 52, 157-168. doi: 10.1111/psyp.12317
70. Smith, N. J., & Kutas, M. (2015b). Regression-based estimation of ERP waveforms: II. Nonlinear effects, overlap correction, and practical considerations. Psychophysiology, 52, 169-181. doi: 10.1111/psyp.12320
71. Snijders, T. A., & Bosker, R. J. (2011). Multilevel Analysis. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-04898-2_387
72. Tremblay, A., & Newman, A. J. (2015). Modeling nonlinear relationships in ERP data using mixed-effects regression with R examples. Psychophysiology, 52, 124-139. doi: 10.1111/psyp.12299
73. Van Petten, C. (1993). A comparison of lexical and sentence-level context effects in event-related potentials. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 485-531. doi: 10.1080/01690969308407586
74. Van Petten, C. (1995). Words and sentences: Event-related brain potential measures. Psychophysiology, 32, 511-525. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1995.tb01228.x
75. Van Petten, C. (2014). Examining the N400 semantic context effect item-by-item: Relationship to corpus-based measures of word co-occurrence. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 94, 407-419. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2014.10.012
76. Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (1990). Interactions between sentence context and word frequency in event-related brain potentials. Memory & Cognition, 18, 380-393. doi: 10.3758/BF03197127
77. Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (1991). Influences of semantic and syntactic context on open-and closed-class words. Memory & Cognition, 19, 95-112. doi: 10.3758/BF03198500
78. Vergara-Martínez, M., & Swaab, T. Y. (2012). Orthographic neighborhood effects as a function of word frequency: An event-related potential study. Psychophysiology, 49, 1277-1289. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01410.x
79. Yarkoni, T., Balota, D., & Yap, M. (2008). Moving beyond Coltheart's N: A new measure of orthographic similarity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 971-979. doi: 10.3758/PBR.15.5.971