Beyond gender stereotypes in language comprehension: Self sex-role descriptions affect the brain's potentials associated with agreement processing

Frontiers in Psychology

Volumn 6, Issue DEC, 2015, Pages

  Canal, Paolo ^a,b   Garnham, Alan ^a   Oakhill, Jane ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

^b SCUOLA UNIVERSITARIA SUPERIORE IUSS PAVIA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Electrophysiology of language comprehension; Gender stereotypes, anaphor processing; Individual differences; Nref; P600; Social perception of gender

Indexed keywords

EID: 84954288669     PISSN: None     EISSN: 16641078     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01953     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., and Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. J. Mem. Lang. 59, 390-412. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
2. Baayen, R. H., and Milin, P. (2010). Analyzing Reaction Times. Int. J. Psychol. Res. 3, 12-28.
3. Bagiella, E., Sloan, R. P., and Heitjan, D. F. (2000). Mixed-effects models in psychophysiology. Psychophysiology 37, 13-20. doi: 10.1111/1469-8986.3710013
4. Banaji, M. R., and Hardin, C. D. (1996). Automatic stereotyping. Psychol. Sci. 7, 136-141. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00346.x
5. Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., and Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: keep it maximal. J. Mem. Lang. 68, 255-278. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
6. Bates, D., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., and Baayen, H. (2015a). Parsimonious Mixed Models. arXiv Preprint arXiv:1506.04967.
7. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., and Walker, S. (2015b). lme4: Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using Eigen and S4. R Package Version 1.1-9. Available at: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/index.html
8. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 42, 155-162. doi: 10.1037/h0036215
9. Bosch, P. (1983). Agreement and Anaphora: A Study of the Role of Pronouns in Syntax and Discourse. London: Academic Press.
10. Brouwer, H., Fitz, H., and Hoeks, J. (2012). Getting real about semantic illusions: rethinking the functional role of the P600 in language comprehension. Brain Res. 1446, 127-143. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2012.01.055
11. Callahan, S. M. (2008). Processing anaphoric constructions: insights from electrophysiological studies. J. Neurolinguistics 21, 231-266. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2007.10.002
12. Camblin, C. C., Ledoux, K., Boudewyn, M., Gordon, P. C., and Swaab, T. Y. (2007). Processing new and repeated names: effects of coreference on repetition priming with speech and fast RSVP. Brain Res. 1146, 172-184. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.07.033
13. Caramazza, A., Grober, E., Garvey, C., and Yates, J. (1977). Comprehension of anaphoric pronouns. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 16, 601-609. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80022-4
14. Carreiras, M., Garnham, A., Oakhill, J., and Cain, K. (1996). The use of stereotypical gender information in constructing a mental model: evidence from English and Spanish. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. A 49, 639-663. doi: 10.1080/713755647
15. Chang, F. R. (1980). Active memory processes in visual sentence comprehension: clause effects and pronominal reference. Mem. Cogn. 8, 58-64. doi: 10.3758/BF03197552
16. Choi, N., and Fuqua, D. R. (2003). The structure of the bem sex role inventory: a summary report of 23 validation studies. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 63, 872-887. doi: 10.1177/0013164403258235
17. Chomsky, N. (1993). Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
18. Corbett, G. G. (1979). The agreement hierarchy. J. Linguist. 15, 203-224. doi: 10.1017/S0022226700016352
19. Corbett, G. G. (1991). Gender. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
20. Delorme, A., and Makeig, S. (2004). EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. J. Neurosci. Methods 134, 9-21. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009
21. Duffy, S. A., and Keir, J. A. (2004). Violating stereotypes: eye movements and comprehension processes when text conflicts with world knowledge. Mem. Cogn. 32, 551-559. doi: 10.3758/BF03195846
22. Fiebach, C. J., Schlesewsky, M., and Friederici, A. D. (2002). Separating syntactic memory costs and syntactic integration costs during parsing: the processing of German WH-questions. J. Mem. Lang. 47, 250-272. doi: 10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00004-9
23. Filik, R., Leuthold, H., Moxey, L. M., and Sanford, A. J. (2011). Anaphoric reference to quantified antecedents: an event-related brain potential study. Neuropsychologia 49, 3786-3794. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.09.043
24. Filik, R., Sanford, A. J., and Leuthold, H. (2008). Processing pronouns without antecedents: evidence from event-related brain potentials. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 20, 1315-1326. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2008.20090
25. Friederici, A. D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends Cogn. Sci. 6, 68-84. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01839-8
26. Friederici, A. D. (2011). The brain basis of language processing: from structure to function. Physiol. Rev. 91, 1357-1392. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00006.2011
27. Friederici, A. D., Steinhauer, K., Mecklinger, A., and Meyer, M. (1998). Working memory constraints on syntactic ambiguity resolution as revealed by electrical brain responses. Biol. Psychol. 47, 193-221. doi: 10.1016/S0301-0511(97)00033-1
28. Garnham, A. (2001). Mental Models and the Interpretation of Anaphora. Hove: Psychology Press.
29. Garnham, A., and Oakhill, J. (1985). On-line resolution of anaphoric pronouns: effects of inference making and verb semantics. Br. J. Psychol. 76, 385-393. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1985.tb01961.x
30. Garrod, S., and Sanford, A. J. (1994). "Resolving sentences in a discourse context: how discourse representation affects language understanding, "in Handbook of Psycholinguistics, ed. M. Gernsbacher (New York, NY: Academic Press), 675-698.
31. Glick, P., and Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 70, 491-512. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
32. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., and Schwartz, J. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74, 1464-1498. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464
33. Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., and Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 85, 197-216. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197
34. Gygax, P., Gabriel, U., Sarrasin, O., Oakhill, J., and Garnham, A. (2008). Generically intended, but specifically interpreted: when beauticians, musicians, and mechanics are all men. Lang. Cogn. Proc. 23, 464-485. doi: 10.1080/01690960701702035
35. Hammer, A., Jansma, B. M., Lamers, M., and Münte, T. F. (2008). Interplay of meaning, syntax and working memory during pronoun resolution investigated by ERPs. Brain Res. 1230, 177-191. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2008.07.004
36. Kaan, E., and Swaab, T. (2003). Repair, revision, and complexity in syntactic analysis: an electrophysiological differentiation. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 15, 98-110. doi: 10.1162/089892903321107855
37. Kanai, R., and Rees, G. (2011). The structural basis of inter-individual differences in human behaviour and cognition. Nat. Neurosci. 12, 231-242. doi: 10.1038/nrn3000
38. Kennison, S. M., and Trofe, J. L. (2003). Comprehending pronouns: a role for word-specific gender stereotype information. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 32, 355-378. doi: 10.1023/A:1023599719948
39. King, J. W., and Kutas, M. (1995). Who did what and when? Using word- and clause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 7, 376-395. doi: 10.1162/jocn.1995.7.3.376
40. Kuperberg, G. R. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: challenges to syntax. Brain Res. 1146, 23-49. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.12.063
41. Kutas, M., and Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: finding meaning in the N400 component of the event related brain potential (ERP). Annu. Rev. Psychol. 62, 621-647. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123
42. Luck, S. J. (2005). An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
43. Misersky, J., Gygax, P. M., Canal, P., Gabriel, U., Garnham, A., Braun, F., et al. (2013). Norms on the gender perception of role nouns in Czech, English, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, and Slovak. Behav. Res. Methods 46, 841-871. doi: 10.3758/s13428-013-0409-z
44. Molinaro, N., Barber, H. A., and Carreiras, M. (2011). Grammatical agreement processing in reading: ERP findings and future directions. Cortex 47, 908-930. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2011.02.019
45. Newman, A. J., Tremblay, A., Nichols, E. S., Neville, H. J., and Ullman, M. T. (2012). The influence of language proficiency on lexical semantic processing in native and late learners of English. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 24, 1205-1223. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00143
46. Nieuwland, M. S. (2014). 'Who's he?' Event-related brain potentials and unbound pronouns. J. Mem. Lang. 76, 1-28. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2014.06.002
47. Nieuwland, M. S., Otten, M., and Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2007). Who are You talking about? Tracking discourse-level referential processing with event-related brain potentials. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 19, 228-236. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2007.19.2.228
48. Nieuwland, M. S., and Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2006). Individual differences and contextual bias in pronoun resolution: evidence from ERPs. Brain Res. 1118, 155-167. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.08.022
49. Nieuwland, M. S., and Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2008). The interplay between semantic and referential aspects of anaphoric noun phrase resolution: evidence from ERPs. Brain Lang. 106, 119-131. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2008.05.001
50. Oostenveld, R., Fries, P., Maris, E., and Schoffelen, J.-M. (2010). FieldTrip: open source software for advanced analysis of MEG, EEG, and invasive electrophysiological data. Comput. Intell. Neurosci. 2011:9. doi: 10.1155/2011/156869
51. Osterhout, L., Bersick, M., and Mclaughlin, J. (1997). Brain potentials reflect violations of gender stereotypes. Mem. Cogn. 25, 273-285. doi: 10.3758/BF03211283
52. Osterhout, L., and Mobley, L. A. (1995). Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. J. Mem. Lang. 34, 739-773. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1995.1033
53. Pakulak, E., and Neville, H. J. (2010). Proficiency differences in syntactic processing of monolingual native speakers indexed by event-related potentials. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 22, 2728-2744. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2009.21393
54. Payne, B. R., Lee, C. L., and Federmeier, K. D. (2015). Revisiting the incremental effects of context on word processing: evidence from single-word event-related brain potentials. Psychophysilogy 52, 1456-1469. doi: 10.1111/psyp.12515
55. Payne, F. D. (1985). "Review of the bem sex-role inventory, "in The Ninth Mental Measurements Yearbook, ed. J. V. Mitchell Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 178-179.
56. Reynolds, D. J., Garnham, A., and Oakhill, J. (2006). Evidence of immediate activation of gender information from a social role name. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. A 59, 886-903. doi: 10.1080/02724980543000088
57. Sanford, A. J. (1985). Cognition and Cognitive Psychology. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
58. Siyanova-Chanturia, A., Pesciarelli, F., and Cacciari, C. (2012). The electrophysiological underpinnings of processing gender stereotypes in language. PLoS ONE 7:e48712. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048712
59. Streb, J., Hennighausen, E., and Rösler, F. (2004). Different anaphoric expressions are investigated by event-related brain potentials. J. Psychol. Res. 33, 175-201. doi: 10.1023/B:JOPR.0000027961.12577.d8
60. Streb, J., Rösler, F., and Hennighausen, E. (1999). Event-related responses to pronoun and proper name anaphors in parallel and nonparallel discourse structures. Brain Lang. 70, 273-286. doi: 10.1006/brln.1999.2177
61. Sturt, P. (2003). The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. J. Mem. Lang. 48, 542-562. doi: 10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00536-3
62. Tanner, D., Mclaughlin, J., Herschensohn, J., and Osterhout, L. (2013). Individual differences reveal stages of L2 grammatical acquisition: ERP evidence. Biling. Lang. Cogn. 16, 367-382. doi: 10.1017/S1366728912000302
63. Tanner, D., and Van Hell, J. G. (2014). ERPs reveal individual differences in morphosyntactic processing. Neuropsychologia 56, 289-301. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.02.002
64. Tremblay, A., and Ransijn, J. (2015). LMERConvenienceFunctions: Model Selection and Post-hoc Analysis for (G)LMER Models. R Package Version 2.10. Available at: http://cran.r-project.org/package=LMERConvenienceFunctions
65. Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2009). "The neuropragmatics of 'simple' utterance comprehension: an ERP review, "in Semantics, and Pragmatics: From Experiment to Theory, eds U. Sauerland and K. Yatsushiro (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan), 276-316.
66. Van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C. M., and Hagoort, P. (1999). Early referential context effects in sentence processing: evidence from event-related brain potentials. J. Mem. Lang. 41, 147-182. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1999.2641
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. doi: 10.1111/1469-8986.00025
68. Van Berkum, J. J. A., Koornneef, A. W., Otten, M., and Nieuwland, M. S. (2007). Establishing reference in language comprehension: an electrophysiological perspective. Brain Res. 1146, 158-171. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.06.091
69. Vos, S. H., and Friederici, A. D. (2003). Intersentential syntactic context effects on comprehension: the role of working memory. Cogn. Brain Res. 16, 111-122. doi: 10.1016/S0926-6410(02)00226-4