Literature DB >> 24122362

Distinguishing lexical- versus discourse-level processing using event-related potentials.

Yi Ting Huang, Joseph Hopfinger, Peter C Gordon.   

Abstract

Two experiments examine the links between neural patterns in EEG (e.g., N400s, P600s) and their corresponding cognitive processes (e.g., lexical access, discourse integration) by varying the lexical and syntactic contexts of co-referential expressions. Experiment 1 examined coreferring expressions when they occurred within the same clause as their antecedents (John/Bill warmly dressed John). Experiment 2 examined between-clause co-referencing with expressions that also varied in lexical frequency (John/Weston went to the store so that John/Weston could buy milk). Evidence of facilitated lexical processing occurred after repeated names, which elicited smaller N400s, as compared with new names. N400s were also attenuated to a greater degree for low-frequency expressions than for high-frequency ones. Repeated names also triggered evidence of postlexical processing, but this emerged as larger P600s for within-clause co-referencing and delayed N400s for between-clause co-referencing. Together, these results suggest that linguistic processes can be distinguished through distinct ERP components or distinct temporal patterns.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24122362      PMCID: PMC3968230          DOI: 10.3758/s13421-013-0356-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mem Cognit        ISSN: 0090-502X


  44 in total

1.  Distinct patterns of neural modulation during the processing of conceptual and syntactic anomalies.

Authors:  Gina R Kuperberg; Phillip J Holcomb; Tatiana Sitnikova; Douglas Greve; Anders M Dale; David Caplan
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2003-02-15       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension.

Authors:  Peter Hagoort; Lea Hald; Marcel Bastiaansen; Karl Magnus Petersson
Journal:  Science       Date:  2004-03-18       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  Influences of semantic and syntactic context on open- and closed-class words.

Authors:  C Van Petten; M Kutas
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1991-01

4.  Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: evidence from ERPs and reading times.

Authors:  Jos J A Van Berkum; Colin M Brown; Pienie Zwitserlood; Valesca Kooijman; Peter Hagoort
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 3.051

5.  Dissociation of automatic and strategic lexical-semantics: functional magnetic resonance imaging evidence for differing roles of multiple frontotemporal regions.

Authors:  Brian T Gold; David A Balota; Sara J Jones; David K Powell; Charles D Smith; Anders H Andersen
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2006-06-14       Impact factor: 6.167

6.  Individual differences and contextual bias in pronoun resolution: evidence from ERPs.

Authors:  Mante S Nieuwland; Jos J A Van Berkum
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2006-09-07       Impact factor: 3.252

7.  Expectation-based syntactic comprehension.

Authors:  Roger Levy
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2007-07-30

8.  Semantic priming and stimulus degradation: implications for the role of the N400 in language processing.

Authors:  P J Holcomb
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 4.016

9.  Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity.

Authors:  M Kutas; S A Hillyard
Journal:  Science       Date:  1980-01-11       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: insight into the semantics-pragmatics interface.

Authors:  Yi Ting Huang; Jesse Snedeker
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2008-11-01       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  1 in total

1.  EEG oscillations during word processing predict MCI conversion to Alzheimer's disease.

Authors:  Ali Mazaheri; Katrien Segaert; John Olichney; Jin-Chen Yang; Yu-Qiong Niu; Kim Shapiro; Howard Bowman
Journal:  Neuroimage Clin       Date:  2017-10-09       Impact factor: 4.881

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.