Literature DB >> 10402255

Electrophysiological signatures of visual lexical processing: open- and closed-class words.

C M Brown1, P Hagoort, M ter Keurs.   

Abstract

This paper presents evidence of the disputed existence of an electrophysiological marker for the lexical-categorical distinction between open- and closed-class words. Event-related brain potentials were recorded from the scalp while subjects read a story. Separate waveforms were computed for open- and closed-class words. Two aspects of the waveforms could be reliably related to vocabulary class. The first was an early negativity in the 230- to 350-msec epoch, with a bilateral anterior predominance. This negativity was elicited by open- and closed-class words alike, was not affected by word frequency or word length, and had an earlier peak latency for closed-class words. The second was a frontal slow negative shift in the 350- to 500-msec epoch, largest over the left side of the scalp. This late negativity was only elicited by closed-class words. Although the early negativity cannot serve as a qualitative marker of the open- and closed-class distinction, it does reflect the earliest electrophysiological manifestation of the availability of categorical information from the mental lexicon. These results suggest that the brain honors the distinction between open- and closed-class words, in relation to the different roles that they play in on-line sentence processing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10402255     DOI: 10.1162/089892999563382

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci        ISSN: 0898-929X            Impact factor:   3.225


  19 in total

1.  Individual cortical current density reconstructions of the semantic N400 effect: using a generalized minimum norm model with different constraints (L1 and L2 norm).

Authors:  H Haan; J Streb; S Bien; F Rösler
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 5.038

2.  Effects of verbal event structure on online thematic role assignment.

Authors:  Evie Malaia; Ronnie B Wilbur; Christine Weber-Fox
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  2012-10

3.  An ERP study of syntactic processing in English and nonsense sentences.

Authors:  Yoshiko Yamada; Helen J Neville
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2006-12-14       Impact factor: 3.252

4.  Dependent mechanism of Chinese prepositions processing in the brain: evidence from event-related potentials.

Authors:  Huan-Hai Fang; Rong-Ping Zhang; Huan-Fei Fang; Ming-Yang Gao; Min Zheng; Xiao-Yu Sun
Journal:  Neurosci Bull       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 5.203

5.  To mind the mind: an event-related potential study of word class and semantic ambiguity.

Authors:  Chia-Lin Lee; Kara D Federmeier
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2006-03-03       Impact factor: 3.252

6.  Syntax, concepts, and logic in the temporal dynamics of language comprehension: evidence from event-related potentials.

Authors:  Karsten Steinhauer; John E Drury; Paul Portner; Matthew Walenski; Michael T Ullman
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2010-02-04       Impact factor: 3.139

7.  Conflict Resolution in Sentence Processing by Bilinguals.

Authors:  Sylvain Moreno; Ellen Bialystok; Zofia Wodniecka; Claude Alain
Journal:  J Neurolinguistics       Date:  2010-11-01       Impact factor: 1.710

8.  Stuttering and natural speech processing of semantic and syntactic constraints on verbs.

Authors:  Christine Weber-Fox; Amanda Hampton
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2008-07-29       Impact factor: 2.297

9.  The fox and the cabra: an ERP analysis of reading code switched nouns and verbs in bilingual short stories.

Authors:  Shukhan Ng; Christian Gonzalez; Nicole Y Y Wicha
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2014-02-14       Impact factor: 3.252

10.  A comparison of brain activity evoked by single content and function words: an fMRI investigation of implicit word processing.

Authors:  Michele T Diaz; Gregory McCarthy
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2009-05-22       Impact factor: 3.252

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.