Literature DB >> 19554559

The effect of presentation paradigm on syntactic processing: An event-related fMRI study.

Donghoon Lee1, Sharlene D Newman.   

Abstract

An event-related fMRI study was conducted to investigate the effect of two different sentence presentation paradigms-rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) and whole sentence presentation-on syntactic processing. During scanning, sentences were presented using one of the two presentation paradigms and were followed by a short delay and a probe to verify sentence comprehension. The delay was included in an attempt to separate sentence-related activity from probe-related activity. The behavioral data showed a main effect of syntactic complexity for reaction time and accuracy, and accuracy revealed an interaction between complexity and the presentation paradigm employed-RSVP produced many more errors for syntactically complex sentences than did whole sentence presentation. The imaging data revealed a syntactic complexity effect during the sentence phase in left BA 44 and during the probe phase in left BA 44 and the left posterior MTG. In addition, timecourse analysis revealed that these two regions also showed an interaction between complexity and presentation paradigm such that there was no complexity effect during RSVP but a significant effect during whole sentence presentation. In addition to finding that these two presentation paradigms differentially affected syntactic processing, there were main effects within the visual pathway (V1/V2 vs. V5) and the hippocampus that revealed significant differences in activation between the paradigms. 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 19554559      PMCID: PMC6870720          DOI: 10.1002/hbm.20845

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp        ISSN: 1065-9471            Impact factor:   5.038


  55 in total

1.  PET studies of syntactic processing with auditory sentence presentation.

Authors:  D Caplan; N Alpert; G Waters
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 6.556

2.  Neural basis for sentence comprehension: grammatical and short-term memory components.

Authors:  Ayanna Cooke; Edgar B Zurif; Christian DeVita; David Alsop; Phyllis Koenig; John Detre; James Gee; Maria Pinãngo; Jennifer Balogh; Murray Grossman
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 5.038

3.  Saccadic eye movements modulate visual responses in the lateral geniculate nucleus.

Authors:  John B Reppas; W Martin Usrey; R Clay Reid
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2002-08-29       Impact factor: 17.173

4.  Reading anomalous sentences: an event-related fMRI study of semantic processing.

Authors:  Kent A Kiehl; Kristin R Laurens; Peter F Liddle
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 6.556

5.  Specialization in the left prefrontal cortex for sentence comprehension.

Authors:  Ryuichiro Hashimoto; Kuniyoshi L Sakai
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2002-08-01       Impact factor: 17.173

6.  Working memory constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity.

Authors:  M C MacDonald; M A Just; P A Carpenter
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  1992-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Sentence complexity and input modality effects in sentence comprehension: an fMRI study.

Authors:  R Todd Constable; Kenneth R Pugh; Ella Berroya; W Einar Mencl; Michael Westerveld; Weijia Ni; Donald Shankweiler
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 6.556

Review 8.  Neuroimaging of syntax and syntactic processing.

Authors:  Yosef Grodzinsky; Angela D Friederici
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurobiol       Date:  2006-03-24       Impact factor: 6.627

9.  Meta-analyzing left hemisphere language areas: phonology, semantics, and sentence processing.

Authors:  M Vigneau; V Beaucousin; P Y Hervé; H Duffau; F Crivello; O Houdé; B Mazoyer; N Tzourio-Mazoyer
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2006-01-18       Impact factor: 6.556

10.  Task-dependent and task-independent neurovascular responses to syntactic processing.

Authors:  David Caplan; Evan Chen; Gloria Waters
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  2007-11-19       Impact factor: 4.027

View more
  9 in total

1.  The putative visual word form area is functionally connected to the dorsal attention network.

Authors:  Alecia C Vogel; Fran M Miezin; Steven E Petersen; Bradley L Schlaggar
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2011-06-20       Impact factor: 5.357

2.  Dissociable neural imprints of perception and grammar in auditory functional imaging.

Authors:  Björn Herrmann; Jonas Obleser; Christian Kalberlah; John-Dylan Haynes; Angela D Friederici
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2011-03-09       Impact factor: 5.038

3.  Does degree of handedness in a group of right-handed individuals affect language comprehension?

Authors:  Sharlene Newman; Evie Malaia; Roy Seo
Journal:  Brain Cogn       Date:  2014-03-06       Impact factor: 2.310

4.  Matching is not naming: a direct comparison of lexical manipulations in explicit and implicit reading tasks.

Authors:  Alecia C Vogel; Steven E Petersen; Bradley L Schlaggar
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2012-06-19       Impact factor: 5.038

5.  Neural correlates of sentence reading in children with reading difficulties.

Authors:  Panagiotis G Simos; Roozbeh Rezaie; Jack M Fletcher; Jenifer Juranek; Andrew C Papanicolaou
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  2011-10-05       Impact factor: 1.837

6.  The effect of semantic relatedness on syntactic analysis: An fMRI study.

Authors:  Sharlene D Newman; Toshikazu Ikuta; Thomas Burns
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2010-03-20       Impact factor: 2.381

7.  The effect of individual differences in working memory capacity on sentence comprehension: an FMRI study.

Authors:  Sharlene D Newman; Evie Malaia; Roy Seo; Hu Cheng
Journal:  Brain Topogr       Date:  2012-11-05       Impact factor: 3.020

8.  Shared syntax in language production and language comprehension--an FMRI study.

Authors:  Katrien Segaert; Laura Menenti; Kirsten Weber; Karl Magnus Petersson; Peter Hagoort
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2011-09-20       Impact factor: 5.357

9.  The neural substrates of natural reading: a comparison of normal and nonword text using eyetracking and fMRI.

Authors:  Wonil Choi; Rutvik H Desai; John M Henderson
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2014-12-23       Impact factor: 3.169

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.