Literature DB >> 21458057

Before the N400: effects of lexical-semantic violations in visual cortex.

Suzanne Dikker1, Liina Pylkkanen.   

Abstract

There exists an increasing body of research demonstrating that language processing is aided by context-based predictions. Recent findings suggest that the brain generates estimates about the likely physical appearance of upcoming words based on syntactic predictions: words that do not physically look like the expected syntactic category show increased amplitudes in the visual M100 component, the first salient MEG response to visual stimulation. This research asks whether violations of predictions based on lexical-semantic information might similarly generate early visual effects. In a picture-noun matching task, we found early visual effects for words that did not accurately describe the preceding pictures. These results demonstrate that, just like syntactic predictions, lexical-semantic predictions can affect early visual processing around ∼100ms, suggesting that the M100 response is not exclusively tuned to recognizing visual features relevant to syntactic category analysis. Rather, the brain might generate predictions about upcoming visual input whenever it can. However, visual effects of lexical-semantic violations only occurred when a single lexical item could be predicted. We argue that this may be due to the fact that in natural language processing, there is typically no straightforward mapping between lexical-semantic fields (e.g., flowers) and visual or auditory forms (e.g., tulip, rose, magnolia). For syntactic categories, in contrast, certain form features do reliably correlate with category membership. This difference may, in part, explain why certain syntactic effects typically occur much earlier than lexical-semantic effects.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21458057     DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2011.02.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brain Lang        ISSN: 0093-934X            Impact factor:   2.381


  17 in total

1.  Sentence understanding depends on contextual use of semantic and real world knowledge.

Authors:  Sarah Tune; Matthias Schlesewsky; Arne Nagels; Steven L Small; Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2016-05-10       Impact factor: 6.556

Review 2.  The maps problem and the mapping problem: two challenges for a cognitive neuroscience of speech and language.

Authors:  David Poeppel
Journal:  Cogn Neuropsychol       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension?

Authors:  Gina R Kuperberg; T Florian Jaeger
Journal:  Lang Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2015-11-13       Impact factor: 2.331

4.  Some inferences still take time: Prosody, predictability, and the speed of scalar implicatures.

Authors:  Yi Ting Huang; Jesse Snedeker
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2018-03-06       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Representational Pattern Similarity of Electrical Brain Activity Reveals Rapid and Specific Prediction during Language Comprehension.

Authors:  Ryan J Hubbard; Kara D Federmeier
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2021-07-29       Impact factor: 5.357

6.  An fMRI study dissociating distance measures computed by Broca's area in movement processing: clause boundary vs. identity.

Authors:  Andrea Santi; Angela D Friederici; Michiru Makuuchi; Yosef Grodzinsky
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-05-20

7.  Restrictive vs. non-restrictive composition: a magnetoencephalography study.

Authors:  Timothy Leffel; Miriam Lauter; Masha Westerlund; Liina Pylkkänen
Journal:  Lang Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2014-09-16       Impact factor: 2.331

8.  Long-range neural synchronization supports fast and efficient reading: EEG correlates of processing expected words in sentences.

Authors:  Nicola Molinaro; Paulo Barraza; Manuel Carreiras
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2013-01-26       Impact factor: 6.556

9.  When expectancies collide: Action dynamics reveal the interaction between stimulus plausibility and congruency.

Authors:  Moreno I Coco; Nicholas D Duran
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2016-12

10.  Oscillatory Brain Dynamics during Sentence Reading: A Fixation-Related Spectral Perturbation Analysis.

Authors:  Lorenzo Vignali; Nicole A Himmelstoss; Stefan Hawelka; Fabio Richlan; Florian Hutzler
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2016-04-29       Impact factor: 3.473

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.