Neural correlates of thematic role assignment for passives in Standard Indonesian.

Previous studies of multiple languages have found processing differences between patient-first and agent-first word orders. However, the results are inconsistent as they do not identify a specific ERP component as a unique correlate of thematic role processing. Furthermore, these studies generally confound word order with frequency, as patient-first structures tend to be infrequent in the languages that have been investigated. There is evidence that frequency at the sentence level plays a significant role in language processing. To address this potential confounding variable, we will test a language where the non-canonical sentences are more frequent and are comparable to the canonical sentences, namely Standard Indonesian. In this language, there is evidence from acquisition, corpus, and clinical data indicates that the use of passive is frequent and salient. One instance of this difference can be demonstrated by the fact that it has been suggested that frequency may be the reason why Indonesian-speaking aphasic speakers do not have impairments in the comprehension of passives, whereas speakers of other languages with aphasia often do. In the present study, we will test 50 native speakers of Indonesian using 100 sentences (50 active and 50 passive sentences). If the neural correlates of thematic role processing are not observed in the critical region of the sentence (the prefix of the verb), this would suggest that the previous results were indeed influenced by frequency, but if we find that specific ERPs are connected to the hypothesized syntactic operations, this would further reinforce the existing evidence of the increased cognitive load required to process more syntactically complicated sentences.

Introduction

For most individuals, understanding sentences is an effortless, uneventful process. However, early research has suggested that not all sentences are equal. Consider the passive structure: Compared to active sentences, passives are acquired and used later by children [1],take longer to process, and are prone to misinterpretation by adults [2]; they also pose difficulties for individuals with brain lesions [3].Debates regarding how humans process different types of sentences have evolved over time. The use of event-related potentials (ERPs) to study language processing is commonplace not only among language researchers, but also among psychologists and clinicians.

In recent years, the vast number of studies investigating neural responses during language processing have mainly focused on linguistic anomalies. The utilization of these violations has yielded distinct ERP responses. The P600, for example, is seen in response to syntactic violations such as violating the expected word order [4] or inflection [5], reflecting semantic integration [6],and the processing of long-distance wh-dependencies [7]. Other ERPs, such as the N400, appear as a result of anomalies such as semantic incongruence [8], the integration of the overall sentence meaning [9], or memory retrieval [6].

Word order processing in ERP research

While the study of ERP responses to linguistic anomalies has been valuable, the tested structures are, by their own nature, anomalies which seldom appear in normal language use [10]. This leads to the question of whether the neural responses that are found in reaction to anomalies can also be observed during typical language comprehension. Not only is there less research on the topic of processing of typical sentences compared to studies using violation-paradigms in sentence processing, which might be considered surprising given that this is the type of language that individuals encounter in daily communication, but the few studies that exist have found little to no consistency and have been plagued by potentially confounding variables such as syntactic frequency. This subsection will discuss the studies that focused on word order effects in sentence processing.

Some studies have documented differences in the processing of different word orders, such as between subject and object relative clauses [10, 11], as well as of simple sentences such as the subject-object and the object-subject word order distinction in German [12]. Most of these studies have investigated languages with a canonical subject-first word order, either SOV or SVO, and have reached similar conclusions: Object-first structures require more effort to process than subject-first structures. For example, in the sentence with an object-embedded relative clause (1a), “The man” is not the agent of the first verb, thereby this does not adhere to the typical English word order in which the agent is placed in the first position [13]. This results in a predicted increase in syntactic processing demand (as reflected in reaction times or accuracy rates, see [2]). The sentence with a subject-embedded relative clause (1b), however, does not violate this expectation, as the NP1 of the sentence is the agent of the action.

1a) The man who the woman violently scolded, admitted the error.

1b) The man who violently scolded the woman, admitted the error.

Matzke et al. [12] compared object-before-subject (OS) to subject-before-object (SO) structures in German with the provision of case information through the use of articles. The temporary ambiguity of case information was also included as a factor by using feminine case markers on the article (die) of the NP1 which, in German, can signify both the accusative and the nominative case (2 and 3).

2) Object—Subject

Die begabte Sängerin entdeckte der talentierte Gitarrist.

The gifted singer discovered the talented guitar player.

‘The talented guitar player discovered the gifted singer.’ [Ambiguous until ‘der’]

3) Subject—Object

Die begabte Sängerin entdeckte den talentierte Gitarrist.

The gifted singer discovered the talented guitar player.

‘The gifted singer discovered the talented guitar player.’ [Ambiguous until ‘den’]

In the masculine NP1 sentences, with regard to the Object-Subject compared to the Subject-Object structures in German, Matzke et al. [12] found a Left Anterior Negativity (LAN) for the critical time window (NP1) that continued for the rest of the sentence. Left fronto-temporal negativity was observed following the 2nd article in the Object-Subject condition. In the condition that was ambiguous up to the second article (as in examples 2 and 3), a P600 was found in the disambiguation section (the 2nd article ‘der’) of the Object-Subject compared to the Subject-Object structures. Matzke et al. [12] attributed the initial LAN on the NP1 to working memory. In a similar experiment, Schlesewsky, Bornkessel, and Frisch [14] found that the LAN was only observed in object-first non-pronominal NP1s in German, and not in pronominal NP1s (as shown in example 4).

4) Object-first pronominal structure

Gestern    hat    ihn    der Vater    dem Sohn    gegeben.

Yesterday    has    itACC    theNOM father theDAT son    given

‘Yesterday, the father had given it to the son’.

As such, the authors came to the conclusion that the LAN originates from a local syntactic mismatch via the violation of canonicity principles in non-pronominal NP1s, rather than from higher working memory usage due to dislocated objects in general.

Other studies which have investigated thematic role assignment processing through ERPs included Meltzer and Braun [10], who compared the processing difference between subject-embedded and object-embedded relative clauses in English, and they found a negativity at NP1 (400-800ms) and a positive shift at the offset of the relative clause for reversible clauses. Jackson, Lorimor, & van Hell [15] observed positivity at the 500-700ms time window when comparing English passive structures to active structures; this positivity was strongest at the left anterior electrodes. In a study of Japanese, Wolff, Schlesewsky, Hirotani, and Bornkessel-Schlesewsky [16] included sentences that were similar to those in German, in which the object-first structures were compared to subject-first structures via the use of a suffix in the nominative or accusative case on the NP. ERPs for object-initial compared to subject-initial structures after NP1 included an early (120-240ms) negativity, which was referred to as ‘scrambling negativity’, a broadly distributed positive shift at the NP1 of Object-Subject structures (400-650ms), an N400 at the NP2 for Subject-Object structures, and a late parietal negativity (650-1050ms) at the verb. Aside from the object scrambling, the positive shift at the NP1 in object-initial sentences was interpreted as the resolution of dependency introduced by an accusative-first argument. Another study on Japanese [17] investigated how context usage influences processing of object-first structures. They observed that object-first structures elicited a sustained LAN at NP1 and P600 at NP2 when the NP1 was new and not provided in the context.

A similar late parietal negativity at the verb was reported in Japanese in another study that used scrambled sentences [18]. A study on simple declarative sentences in Basque [19], which marks NPs with the ergative and absolutive cases, showed a similar negativity post-onset of the NP1 of object-first sentences. Like in Japanese, the NP2 follows the NP1 in Basque, with the verb in the final position. In the NP2 position, a left negativity (400-550ms) for object-first structures was found. In the P600 time window (700-900ms) in the verb position, a parietal positivity was observed. The negativity at the NP1 for object-first structures, although observed in a different time window, is suggested to be related to the scrambling negativity found in both German and Japanese. The effect at the NP2 is interpreted as a LAN that expresses working memory usage for displaced elements, or, alternatively, Erdocia et al. [19] suggested that subjects and objects are processed differently regardless of their position. They hypothesized that the P600 observed at the verb position for object-first structures relates to an increase of processing costs when elements are displaced from their canonical positions. These studies attributed the late negativity to general increased processing of scrambled sentences.

For case-marking languages, there appears to be a pattern of a negative shift in NP1, which is the critical region of the sentence for thematic role assignment. However, other parts of the sentence indicate a different pattern: The P600 found in both Basque [19] and English [15] verbs is somewhat contradictory, as the case information denoting the thematic role assignment was provided earlier at the NP1 in Basque; as such, this P600 cannot be attributed to thematic role processing, and the authors attributed it to ‘higher syntactic complexity’. By contrast, a study of Japanese [16] found a late negativity on the verb, which was an effect in a similar time window but with opposite polarity. Due to the inconsistencies in these findings (which may be in part attributed to the experimental design and the languages examined in these studies), it is particularly difficult to draw a conclusion on what constitutes a neural correlate of thematic role processing. To summarize the findings of comparable studies, Table 1 outlines the results of the discussed literature with results from [10] presented separately as unlike the other studies, they discuss relative clauses with different regions measured.

Table 1

Summary of previous ERP studies comparing word orders.

Language	Conditions	NP1	NP2	V	Note
German* [12]	SVO-OVS	LAN (400-600ms, 600-800ms)	- Negativity (400-1000ms)	Not discussed	Nom/Acc case was provided by articles preceding NPs.
	Ambiguity (fem. NP1 vs masc. NP1)		- P600 (600-800ms, 800-1000ms) for amb. fem. NP1
Japanese* [16]	SOV-OSV	- Scrambling negativity (120-240ms)	N400 (300-500ms)	Late negativity (650-1000ms)	Nom/Acc case was provided by markers following the NPs.
		- positivity (400-650ms)
Basque* [19]	SOV-OSV	Negativity (300-500ms)	Negativity (400-550ms)	P600 (700-900ms)	Erg/Abs case was provided by markers following the NPs.
English* [15]	Act-Pas	Not discussed	Not discussed	P600 (500-700ms)	Frontal distribution of P600- different from the typical distribution in garden-path sentences.
	Conditions	NP1	RC onset	RC offset
English [10]	S.RC–O.RC	Negativity (400-800ms) for reversible	Not found	positivity (-300-100ms)	Only found reversibility effects, no word order effect.
	Reversibility	(i.e. ani. NP1 vs inani. NP1)		for rev. conditions

*all components are evoked to compare object-first to subject-first structures

Some relevant properties of Standard Indonesian

Indonesian is a zero-marking language [20] without case or gender markings. Transitive verbs are usually only inflected for voice (active or passive), and there is no verb inflection for tense, aspect, or agreement. Indonesian has SVO word order [21]; however, the ordering of constituents can be flexible, and it is possible (although infrequent) for verbs to take the initial position. Chung [22] suggested that Indonesian belongs to a branch of the Austronesian language family that was originally verb-initial, as the passivized transitive, active-transitive, as well as intransitive verbs can take the 1st position.

The usual transitive passive (5b) has the patient in the initial position. Examples of typical simple active and simple passive sentences are as follows:

5a) Simple active (agent-patient / SVO)

Perempuan    itu    mendorong    laki-laki    itu

girl    the    ACT-push    boy    the

‘the girl is pushing the boy’

5b) Simple passive (patient-agent / OVS)

Laki-laki    itu    didorong    (oleh) perempuan    itu

boy    the    PAS-push    (by)    girl    the

‘the boy is pushed by the girl’

The canonical sentence (5a) contains a verb with an active-transitive voice marking (men-). Likewise, the passive is expressed by the prefix (di-) on the verb in (5b), where ‘the boy’ is the patient of the action. Similar to English, the by-phrase is optional in the passive. In addition, the preposition (oleh) ‘by’ may be omitted when the agent is immediately adjacent to the verb (Cole & Hermon, 2008). As the current study observes the ERP distinctions between the simple active and the simple passive, it is also worth noting that the typical passive in Indonesian, unlike in most Indo-European languages, is highly frequent. It is acquired at a very early stage (around 2 years old; [23]) compared to English (4–5 years old), which can be attributed to its high input frequency of 28–35% in Indonesian, compared to 4–5% in English. This difference is also reflected in the written form: Only 9% of English verbs display passive morphology [24] compared to 30–40% of Indonesian verbs [25] having the passive marker ‘di-‘.

The present study

The current study will investigate the processing of non-anomalous, simple sentences with differing word orders. The focus will be on the critical point in time, which is mainly the verb, but other regions of the sentence (such as NP2) will be investigated to check for spill-over effects.

The two conditions to be included are the active and the passive. The materials will be typical, plausible, reversible (both noun phrases are animate), violation-free sentences. There are some aspects of the Indonesian language that make the topic of the present study worth pursuing. First, the thematic roles of the NPs are coded by the passivization prefix on the verb rather than by case marking on the NPs. Second, unlike the studies of German [12] and Basque [19], no ambiguity manipulations are involved. Third, the structures to be tested in the current study are both relatively frequent compared to the passive structures in previously studied languages and are considered to be typical. The object-first conditions in the previous studies are infrequent in the respective languages compared to their subject-first counterparts; for example, the object-embedded relative clause in English [26] and the object-subject structure in German [27] are both highly infrequent structures. While arguments against exclusively syntactic frequency-based accounts of sentence processing have been established for German [28], there is behavioral evidence of the influence of sentence-level frequency and its interaction with other syntactic contrasts, such as the lexical bias of verbs [29-31].

The current experiment will contribute by providing electrophysiological data from Standard Indonesian, a zero-marking language that lacks many morphosyntactic features of Indo-European languages, paired with a relatively rigid word order. To the best of our knowledge, no ERP study has investigated Indonesian, where the ‘non-canonical’ sentence structure is relatively frequent. This is important because all the previous studies have compared one common sentence structure to an extremely infrequent one, and there is a wealth of evidence suggesting that syntactic frequency plays a role in sentence processing at the behavioral level [2, 32, 33].

The outcome of the proposed experiment will reveal the neural correlates of thematic role assignment, which is a common process in sentence processing. The proposed study will attempt to determine whether there are neural correlates at all for thematic role processing of non-anomalous sentences and will reveal potential underlying cognitive processes required to parse sentences.

Method

Participants

50 right-handed, healthy, native speakers of Indonesian will participate, and be tested at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. All the participants will be tested using an Indonesian translation of the short form of the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory [34] to ensure that they are classified as right-handed. Participants will provide informed consent and will be financially compensated. As a power analysis is not possible due to the lack of previously studies on non-anomalous sentence processing, we will use a heuristic estimate of the sample size needed by doubling the largest sample size of previous relevant studies we found on non-anomalous sentence processing: Jackson, Lorimor, & van Hell [15] had 25 participants, and therefore the proposed study will recruit 50 participants. We will recruit participants from both within the university (students and/or staff) as well as outside of it. The participants will have to complete a language background questionnaire to ensure that they have first-language or equivalent proficiency in Indonesian. This study was approved by the Hong Kong Polytechnic University’s Institutional Review Board (ref no. HSEARS20211223003). Written consent will be obtained from participants.

Materials

Participants will read stimuli comprising 100 semantically reversible active and passive sentences (see S1 Appendix in S1 File). Examples of which are shown in Table 2.

Table 2

Stimuli examples of each condition.

Condition	NP1	Art	VP	Adjunct	NP2	PP/RC
Active	Polisi	itu	menembak	langsung	seorang perampok	di malam hari.
	Police	that/the	ACTshoot	immediately	(a) robber	at night.
		(the/a) police immediately shoots (the/a) robber at night.
Passive	Polisi	itu	ditembak	langsung	oleh perampok	di malam hari.
	Police	that/the	PASshoot	immediately	by robber	at night
		(the/a) police is immediately shot by (the/a) robber at night

The sentences involve an animate subject and object and are constructed while avoiding a plausibility bias. Word order is manipulated by using two structures: simple active and simple passive sentences. Based on previous studies on processing well-formed sentences, the contrast of interest is passive-active, and whether the effects of the word order persist. We will strive for active-passive pairing plausibility with the use of NP1 and NP2 that are plausibly reversible (i.e. each sentence should not be strongly biased to one interpretation due to the nouns used). Additionally, there will be 200 filler trials consisting of questions (e.g. What did the adventurer notice yesterday?) and cleft sentences (e.g. it is the boy who the girl is calling) to prevent the habituation of the participants. The task for both the experimental and filler sentences will be discussed in the Procedure. The stimuli will be tested for acceptability and prototypicality using an online survey method utilizing a Likert scale of 1 to 7 with a similar setup used by Jackson, Lorimor, & van Hell [15]. Assuming the materials are rated acceptable and plausible by raters, the materials will not be further edited.

The materials will be presented visually and word-by-word for 500ms with a 100ms blank screen between each word. Each trial begins with a blank screen of 750ms followed by the word ‘siap?’ (ready?), which stays on the screen until participants presses any keys. There will be two lists of sentences each pseudorandomized into 10 sets (each set containing 10 experimental sentences and 20 fillers). Digital triggers will be manually inserted at three time points in every sentence: at the onset of the verb (i.e., the onset of the prefix), and at the onset of NP2. Additionally, NP1 data points will be extracted from -1400 to -200 before the verb onset to be used as a sanity check to see if there are baseline differences between the conditions. It is important to note that the triggers will be located in the middle of the sentence.

Frequency

The main aim of this study is to essentially ‘control’ for the possible effect of frequency. It might not be feasible to manipulate the relative syntactic frequency of a structure in a language. However, at the lexical level, verb bias (or the frequency with which verbs appear in different structures) influences both production [35] and comprehension [36]. While most of the previous studies did not address this variable in their materials, one study by Jackson et al. [15] attempted this by using the progressive participle ‘-ing’ in English (which is less frequent than the simple active verb form and is somewhat comparable to the passive) in combination with the past tense instead of simple present active structures. This has two potential issues; the first is we interpret thematic role processing as the assignment of agent/patient role to the first/second noun phrase in the study, and the active voice has several verb forms such as the simple form in which the first noun phrase is the agent, and when considered as a collective as they should be, these occur more frequently than the passive form. The second issue is whether the additional progressive aspect information deviating from the canonical default of the simple present active compared to passive will elicit a different neural signal is unknown. In our study, we will attempt to control verb bias by incorporating verb pairs that fulfil either of the two criteria:

A verb with higher token frequency in its passive form compared to its active form.

A verb with the same frequency class* for both the passive and the active form.

*Frequency class is a number assigned to a group of words whereby this number does not often change in different corpora. The calculation is as follows: The frequency of the most frequent word in the corpus is divided by the frequency of the specific word, and log base 2 of the result is rounded up to the closest whole number.

We used the Indonesian mixed corpus, which is the largest Indonesian online corpus in the Leipzig Corpora Collection [37]. The distribution and descriptive information of the frequency can be seen in Fig 1 and Table 3, respectively (for full frequency information about the verbs, see S2 Appendix in S1 File). In Fig 2, log-transformed frequency values of active verbs are deducted by log-transformed frequency values of passive verbs. The general pattern is not only are they relatively comparable, but if anything, the passive verbs are slightly more frequent for some pairs. Extremely rare words (with a frequency class of 20 or higher) will not be used in this study, as the highest frequency class is 17 and the lowest is 7.

Fig 1

Beeswarm plot of log-transformed passive and active verb frequencies.

Table 3

Descriptives of verb frequency information.

	Active	Passive
Mean	21513.1	26415.88
SD	30110.56	50517.23
Range	124326	342184
Min	301	411
Max	124627	342595

Fig 2

Beeswarm plot of log-transformed difference between active and passive (active–passive).

Procedure

Participants will read the participant information sheet, fill out a questionnaire about their demographic details, and sign the informed consent form.

Participants will be seated in front of a presentation monitor on which the sentences will be presented using E-Prime software, and the experiment will start with written instructions that will be explained orally by the experimenter. During the whole experiment, a fixation cross will be shown between trials and sets. Prior to the experiment, participants will be instructed to minimize their head movements during the trials and not to close their eyes while performing the experiment, although they will not be asked to refrain from blinking.

After every 3–8 trials (randomized), participants will be given a comprehension prompt. For the experimental items and filler cleft sentences, the comprehension prompt will be a yes/no question to probe the thematic role assignment (e.g., Did the police shoot the robber?/Did the robber shoot the police?). For the filler questions, the comprehension prompt will be a sentence that appropriately responds to the question (e.g., the adventurer noticed an officer patrolling) or if the noun phrase in the question is presented as the theme (e.g., the officer called the adventurer), and participants will have to judge whether the sentence is an appropriate response to the question (e.g., they should respond "yes" if they see "the adventurer noticed an officer patrolling" after this filler). These prompts are designed to ensure that the participants remain focused and parse the trials displayed, as well as to provide a measure of comprehension performance.

To avoid fatigue, there will be pauses after every block consisting of 30 trials (10 blocks in total), where the participants can take a break and resume the experiment whenever they are ready. The total test session, including cap and electrode preparation, will take approximately one and a half hours per participant.

EEG recording and preprocessing

EEGs will be recorded using 64 Ag-Acl electrodes that will be attached to the participant’s scalp via an elastic cap with a 10–20 system. Conductive gel will be used. The cap has two dedicated electrodes for the left and right mastoids. To monitor horizontal and vertical eye movements, two electrodes are fixed in the outer canthi of each eye, and one more will be placed below the left eye (the VEOG above the left eye is integrated in the cap). Electrode impedances will be kept below 5k Ω. The EEG will be amplified and digitized with a sampling rate of 1000 Hz with an analog bandpass filter of 0.03-100Hz. The amplifier that will be used is the SynAmps 2 (NeuroScan, Charlotte, NC, United States), and the cap will be the 64-channel Quik-Cap Neo Net (NeuroScan, Charlotte, NC, United States). Stimtracker (Cedrus) will provide an interface between the experiment presentation software and EEG acquisition. Continuous EEG data will be acquired using Curry 7 acquisition software (Compumedics NeuroScan) whereby the files will be exported to the.cnt format and analysed using EEGLAB [38] for the preprocessing, and FieldTrip [39] for the statistical analysis.

The EEG data will be re-referenced to the two mastoid electrodes. The ERPs will be calculated per participant, per electrode, and per condition in intervals of 200ms before onset to 1000ms after onset for each time-locked trigger. These epochs will then be demeaned per channel in each epoch (the mean of the data from the entire epoch will be subtracted from each data point, as this may result in better ICA decompositions than baseline-correcting based on pre-stimulus interval; [40]. The epochs will then be subjected to an independent component analysis using the runica() command in EEGLAB [41]; this will divide the data into many independent components corresponding to the number of channels, excluding mastoid electrodes, EOGs, and bad channels that are previously marked. These components will be inspected visually to identify blinks and saccades, and components that are identified as blinks or saccades will be removed (a maximum of four components per participant can be removed, and if the number of components removed exceeds this, the participant will be excluded from the analysis). After the removal of components corresponding to blinks and saccades, baseline correction will be applied to the data with a 200 ms pre-stimulus onset baseline. Next, the epochs will be run through a moving window peak-to-peak threshold function for artefact detection; epochs with artifacts will be marked for removal based on this criterion. Lastly, the data will be filtered using a 0.1–40.0 Hz bandpass filter via the pop_eegfiltnew() default EEGLAB function.

There is an alternative method of not using baseline corrections, as suggested by Wolff et al. [16] and Friederici, Wang, Herrmann, Maess, & Oertel [42] who conducted sentence processing experiments. The reasoning behind this approach is that in the mid-sentence time windows, the waves of each trial may not be identical prior to the onset of the critical word, therefore potentially distorting the baseline. Wolff et al. [16] instead used narrower bandpass filters (0.3–20.0Hz) to exclude slow drifts while still including language-related ERPs. However, Steinhauer [43] criticized the use of a higher filter instead of baseline-correction because first of all, the modified filter does not distinguish between artifacts (slow drifts) and real slow waves related to language processing; moreover, the filter converts sustained effects into apparent local effects such as ELANs, and finally, the increased filtering does not directly address the problem of a distorted baseline resulting from differences before the onset of the critical region. We therefore will adopt a 200ms baseline in this study.

Data exclusion criteria

Participants may be excluded based on our predetermined data exclusion criteria, which include the following:

Minimum number of trials after artifact rejection: We determine a preset number of 25 trials per condition as a minimum. Any participant having fewer than 25 trials in any condition after artifact rejection will be excluded from the analysis.

Missing information/data: If a participant refuses to complete all or part of the questionnaire about her/his demographic information or the handedness inventory, or if a technical issue leads to missing data/a subset of missing data for a participant, the individual will be excluded from the analysis.

Bad channels (1): The threshold for data exclusion is at or over 15% of the electrodes (9 or more) being unusable due to excessive artifacts or environmental noise. This is in the event that these channels cannot be interpolated due to positioning (for example, multiple bad channels being adjacent to each other and therefore not having enough neighbouring electrodes for interpolation).

Bad channels (2): A second criterion is if a number of bad channels cluster or are adjacent to one another: If there are 6 bad channels in one cluster/adjacent to one another, the participant will be excluded.

Signal-to-noise ratio: As proposed by Parks, Gannon, Long, & Young [44], bootstrap resampling with a value of 9999 bootstraps of ERP waveforms will be used to calculate a signal-to-noise ratio confidence interval for each individual subject (a minimum of 25 trials). The lower bound of this calculation provides an objective measure of signal quality, and ensures that the components we are analyzing exceed a predetermined signal-to-noise ratio. Participants whose signal-to-noise ratio lower bound is below 3.0 dB will be excluded from the analysis. This specific value is within the accuracy peak of subject classification, and experienced ERP investigators have generally considered waveforms below 3.0 dB to be noisy when they are visually inspected.

Statistical analysis plan

The statistical analysis will be conducted using cluster-based permutation tests [45] over all the scalp electrodes and the entire post-stimulus epoch. The advantage of this approach is that it allows testing for effects anywhere on the scalp and any time in the epoch, while still controlling the familywise false positive rate, and without the experimenter needing to choose regions and time windows for analysis. The test works by comparing the active and passive ERPs at each channel and each sample and identifying clusters of spatiotemporally adjacent data points where the difference between the two conditions exceeds some threshold; in our analysis, that threshold will be two-tailed p < .1 in a t-test. In other words, a t-test comparing active and passive will be performed at every sample in every channel, if a series of several time points in a row on the same channel and/or several adjacent channels at the same time all exceed this threshold, they are treated as a "cluster". Next, each cluster is assigned a test statistic (in our case, the test statistic for a cluster is derived by summing the t-values of all the samples in the cluster), and the largest cluster-level test statistic in the epoch is taken as the observed test statistic for the data. Next, the data are randomly permuted (i.e., within each subject, the condition labels "active" and "passive" may be randomly switched) several thousand times, and with each random permutation the abovementioned procedure of identifying clusters and calculating a test statistic is repeated. This yields a permutation distribution of several thousand test statistics, against which the original observed test statistic is compared. The proportion of permutation test statistics that are larger than the original observed test statistic is the p-value for the test; if there is a significant difference between the active and passive ERPs then this value will be small. See [45] for a more detailed explanation of how this test works.

We will run the test using a cluster threshold of p < .1, as this makes the test more sensitive to weak, sustained effects similar to what was found in previous studies that have investigated thematic role processing (see [45], for discussion of how the cluster threshold influences the sensitivity of the test to different types of effects) and at least two spatial neighbouring electrodes that also meet the threshold (we will use the minnbchan = 2 function in the Fieldtrip implementation of the cluster-based test). The permutation test will use 5000 iterations.

Predictions

There are several possible patterns of the results. These are described below.

An ERP contrast can be expected between canonical and non-canonical sentences on the critical region (verb). We can expect a posterior positivity (P600) at the disambiguation point to indicate that a revision of the thematic information is needed: NP1 should be reassigned from the default agent role to become the patient of the action.

An ERP contrast can be expected between canonical and non-canonical sentences in the NP2 time windows. Additionally, based on earlier studies we expect a ‘generalized’ increase in processing costs in comprehending the non-canonical structures attributed to violation of transitivity expectation [16] as well as retrieval of verbal material in a non-canonical position and uptick in working memory demands [19]. For example, the verbs in Basque [19] and Japanese [16] provide no additional thematic information, but within that section, ERP differences for object-first compared to subject-first structures were observed.

A lack of ERP correlates in both the verb and NP2, especially between the passive and active conditions, suggests that previous findings regarding the neural correlates of thematic role assignment were confounded by syntactic frequency because the studies compared one highly frequent structure (e.g. active) to a highly infrequent sentence structure (e.g. passive).

In general, for the time windows and specific components, due to the nature of cluster-based permutation where adjacent sites and time points are correlated, we will be looking at the whole epoch (here we theorize that a ‘real’ effect should persist through multiple adjacent electrodes and a chunk of tens to hundreds of milliseconds/samples–a more detailed description of the procedure is provided by [45]). However, were there to be an effect in either the verb or NP2 (as per the predictions above), we expect it to be observed in the time windows and distributions corresponding to the LAN, N400, and/or P600 –all of which have been observed in similar studies and above 300ms. Specifically, for the verb, we would expect the passive to be more positive than the active for the 500-700ms time window, as this was what the study closest [15] to this one reported in their critical region. For NP2, we expect some form of negativity to occur for the passive compared to the active between the 300-600ms time window–this was observed in studies which reported ERPs post-disambiguation.

Results

Timeline

Funding and research staff have already been secured for this project. With the assumption that this Registered Report Protocol is accepted, we hope to carry out data collection during fall 2022-or as soon as we receive an in-principle acceptance notice, complete the data analysis within winter 2022 (as most of the data processing steps described in the manuscript are automated, this step can be completed very quickly), and we will submit the Registered Report by spring 2023. One potential issue here is that our institution is in a location where Indonesian is not the first language for most of the population. However, we believe we will still be able to recruit a sufficient number of participants from the immigrant and student population.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

25 Apr 2022

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nicola Molinaro, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: SUMMARY

The authors report the design and motivation of an ERP study in standard Indonesian compare active and passive structures. The authors explain the rationale for the study, namely that previous ERP studies of canonical vs. noncanonical structures are often confounding structure with frequency, whereas in Indonesian the passive is much more frequent on average (and, for some verbs, apparently the preferred structure). This allows the authors to ascertain whether the standard ERP effects of grammatical, noncanonical structures relative to grammatical, canonical ones is due to the underlying structural alternation or frequency. The authors detail the design, involving 100 active/passive sentences along with 100 filler structures, including detailed EEG data collection procedure and analysis pipeline.

EVALUATION

The study is well-motivated and the experimental design is rigorous. The manuscript is clearly written. I have no major concerns, and look forward to seeing the results of the study. As a side comment, I appreciate that the inclusion of such an under-studied language is nicely scientifically motivated, given the gaps in the existing literature. I do have some minor comments below.

MINOR

I did not notice where the data will be made available upon study completion.

The discussed on animacy on page 8, lines 174-176 seemed unnaturally truncated, with the sentence about Meltzer and Braun (2013) feeling quite out of context and unfinished.

Table 1 was a bit unclear; the study by Meltzer and Braun (2013) is set off with different headers, but not much explanation is provided to understand what this means. In general, the whole table needs to be fleshed out more to indicate what to expect in each column of the listed studies.

It might be worth considering additional fillers beyond the question structure to draw attention away from the critical active/passive structures in declarative sentences.

It might be worth inserting triggers for every word position in order to allow other possible analyses, e.g. a “sanity check” at NP1 in order to indicate that there are no baseline differences between conditions, etc. Why not just use triggers for every position (just in case)?

page 5, examples 2 and 3 are translated the same way, but as I understand it, the roles should be reversed between these two sentences given the nominative case on ‘guitar player’ in (2) and accusative case on ‘guitar player’ in 3.

page 16, line 367 – typo, I believe “shown on the in between trials” should probably be “shown on the screen in between trials”

Reviewer #2: The manuscript proposes a study with the goal to investigate the involved processes as indexed by ERP components when reading well-formed sentences in active and passive structures. From the provided document, their main goals are to 1) identify ERP components indexing thematic role assignment (or find that such a component does not exist) and 2) disentangle the various components for various languages reported in the literature. Novel to prior research, their study investigates Indonesian as a language for which the passive structure is much more commonly used as in the previously investigated languages, thus, eliminating frequency effects that might have tainted previous research.

This approach of disentangling the effects of thematic role assignment from the potentially confounding frequency effect appears reasonable and highly interesting.

However, I would like to share some concerns and notes that arose when reading the manuscript:

Major comments:

1) According to the guidelines, the authors are supposed to describe where the data will be available. While the authors state that they are planning to make the data available, they do not mention where.

2) The authors mention that the stimuli will be pretested for acceptability. In order to avoid a potential confound, I would suggest also pretesting for prototypicality. In their example in Table 2, the police is the patient of the shooting while the robber is the agent. This seems potentially unproblematic, but judging from the material list, there might be cases where there is a preferred role assignment based on the involved entities. Depending on whether this preference is met or not, potential effects could be evoked.

3) While the authors convincingly explain their planned method of data processing starting in line 425, I see potential issues with the baseline correction approach, especially in regards to the NP2. As the NP2 is immediately following the Verb, the baseline correction will be conducted on potential effects in the verb region. This is especially an issue because a P600 effect is even predicted for the verb region. This issue is also directly related with another concern: The presentation rate (500 ms + 100 ms) puts the onset of the NP2 directly into the P600 time-window of the verb. The epoch length for the planned ERP analysis with 1000 ms after stimulus onset thus also contains the onset of the NP2. This might pose a problem for both time-windows: the P600 could be shifted by early effects evoked by the NP2 while early effects on the NP2 could suffer from the underlying wave form of the P600. In that regard, I was wondering if Indonesian allows to fill the position between the verb and NP2 with e.g., temporal adverbs or similar that could be kept constant across conditions in order to create a longer distance between the verb and NP2 and, thus, minimize the overlap of effects from different regions and the baseline correction issue.

4) Related to the previous point, I was wondering about the necessity to keep the semantic content of the passive and active structures identical. Currently, the swap from active and passive leads to a swap of the NP2 as well, because the “robber” (from the example) maintains the role of the shooter. This leads to a target manipulation which does not seem particularly necessary in this case, given that both entities similarly reasonably could take the active and passive role in the sentence. Judging from the material section, it appears as though the authors paid attention to follow this premise. This also again ties in with the earlier mentioned pretest. I believe that, in general, avoiding a target manipulation, when possible, should be preferred. While I understand concerns regarding the change of the semantic content of the sentence, it appears to me that this would be possible here in favor of “cleaner” comparisons.

5) The Predictions section should be fleshed out more. While the authors specifically state predictions for the P600 component in the verb region, for the NP2 region they only mention a “generalized” increase of processing cost. Also, it is not clear to me whether prediction 3 (l. 505) is stated in regard to the NP2, the verb or both.

Given their literature review, it would be nice to see the predictions again being put into that context. Which time-windows are they considering? In favor of which interpretation/research would a component (or the lack of a component) be?

Lastly, a comparably minor comment in relation to the predictions: The authors acknowledge the difference between certain languages, as for example that Basque and Japanese do not provide thematic information on the verb, while Indonesian entirely provides this information on the verb. As the region which allows for thematic assignment thereby shifts and might be entangled with different processes that are inherent to the respective region, a direct comparison of effects (or the lack of effects) might be a bit problematic. I agree that their planned study could highly contribute to the field and would yield valuable new insights, but a direct comparison should still be done with caution.

Minor Comments:

1) As the authors discussed research on Japanese, I was thinking of a more recent study by Yano and Koizumi (Yano, M., & Koizumi, M. (2018). Processing of non-canonical word orders in (in) felicitous contexts: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33(10), 1340-1354.). While they investigate the effect of givenness in combination with word order, their findings might potentially enrich the discussion of the current study and provides a more recent reference to the study of word order in Japanese. Especially, as a focus of the literature review was put on studies on well-formed sentences.

2) I am not very familiar with the means of analysis planned by the authors. From my understanding, the cluster-level test statistic is not the standard in the literature. As such, I think it would be helpful if this section could be expanded a bit more.

3) The sentence staring at line 348 appears to be erroneous.

4) The sentence in line 367 is missing a word (“a fixation cross will be shown on the in between trials and sets.”)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: William Matchin

Reviewer #2: No

8 Jun 2022

We would like to thank the editor and reviewers for their helpful feedback; this has helped us make the issues at stake in the paper clearer. All changes in the manuscript are highlighted yellow. Our detailed responses to the reviewers are below.

Editor Comments

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

We have revised the style to match the formatting samples.

2. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

We have added an additional description of the data availability for our study after the timeline (p26).

Reviewer 1

The authors report the design and motivation of an ERP study in standard Indonesian compare active and passive structures. The authors explain the rationale for the study, namely that previous ERP studies of canonical vs. noncanonical structures are often confounding structure with frequency, whereas in Indonesian the passive is much more frequent on average (and, for some verbs, apparently the preferred structure). This allows the authors to ascertain whether the standard ERP effects of grammatical, noncanonical structures relative to grammatical, canonical ones is due to the underlying structural alternation or frequency. The authors detail the design, involving 100 active/passive sentences along with 100 filler structures, including detailed EEG data collection procedure and analysis pipeline.

EVALUATION

The study is well-motivated and the experimental design is rigorous. The manuscript is clearly written. I have no major concerns, and look forward to seeing the results of the study. As a side comment, I appreciate that the inclusion of such an under-studied language is nicely scientifically motivated, given the gaps in the existing literature. I do have some minor comments below.

MINOR

I did not notice where the data will be made available upon study completion.

Thanks for pointing this out, we have added an additional subsection after the timeline (p24).

The discussed on animacy on page 8, lines 174-176 seemed unnaturally truncated, with the sentence about Meltzer and Braun (2013) feeling quite out of context and unfinished.

This part has been removed; the study has been discussed in an earlier section (p6).

Table 1 was a bit unclear; the study by Meltzer and Braun (2013) is set off with different headers, but not much explanation is provided to understand what this means. In general, the whole table needs to be fleshed out more to indicate what to expect in each column of the listed studies.

Thank you for the feedback. We added an explanation before Table 1 (p8) on its contents and why the Meltzer and Braun (2013) study has a separate header in the table.

It might be worth considering additional fillers beyond the question structure to draw attention away from the critical active/passive structures in declarative sentences.

We have added another set of fillers using cleft sentences bringing the total to 300 sentences. The comprehension question for this set will be similar to the experimental items (who did what to who). While this will increase experiment duration, we believe that the original experiment duration is already relatively short, and this addition will not affect the quality of the data from concerns such as the gel drying out or waning concentration of the participants (previous estimated duration: 28 minutes 45 seconds, current estimated duration: 43 minutes and 3 seconds). This information is added on page 14 & 19.

It might be worth inserting triggers for every word position in order to allow other possible analyses, e.g. a “sanity check” at NP1 in order to indicate that there are no baseline differences between conditions, etc. Why not just use triggers for every position (just in case)?

This is a fantastic suggestion, thank you very much. We will analyze the data time-locked to NP1 (this information is added on p14).

page 5, examples 2 and 3 are translated the same way, but as I understand it, the roles should be reversed between these two sentences given the nominative case on ‘guitar player’ in (2) and accusative case on ‘guitar player’ in 3.

page 16, line 367 – typo, I believe “shown on the in between trials” should probably be “shown on the screen in between trials”

Both errors have been amended.

Reviewer 2

The manuscript proposes a study with the goal to investigate the involved processes as indexed by ERP components when reading well-formed sentences in active and passive structures. From the provided document, their main goals are to 1) identify ERP components indexing thematic role assignment (or find that such a component does not exist) and 2) disentangle the various components for various languages reported in the literature. Novel to prior research, their study investigates Indonesian as a language for which the passive structure is much more commonly used as in the previously investigated languages, thus, eliminating frequency effects that might have tainted previous research.

This approach of disentangling the effects of thematic role assignment from the potentially confounding frequency effect appears reasonable and highly interesting.

However, I would like to share some concerns and notes that arose when reading the manuscript:

Major comments:

1) According to the guidelines, the authors are supposed to describe where the data will be available. While the authors state that they are planning to make the data available, they do not mention where.

We have added an additional subsection after the timeline referring to data availability (p26).

2) The authors mention that the stimuli will be pretested for acceptability. In order to avoid a potential confound, I would suggest also pretesting for prototypicality. In their example in Table 2, the police is the patient of the shooting while the robber is the agent. This seems potentially unproblematic, but judging from the material list, there might be cases where there is a preferred role assignment based on the involved entities. Depending on whether this preference is met or not, potential effects could be evoked.

Thank you for the suggestion. We will test prototypicality along with acceptability (p14).

3) While the authors convincingly explain their planned method of data processing starting in line 425, I see potential issues with the baseline correction approach, especially in regards to the NP2. As the NP2 is immediately following the Verb, the baseline correction will be conducted on potential effects in the verb region. This is especially an issue because a P600 effect is even predicted for the verb region. This issue is also directly related with another concern: The presentation rate (500 ms + 100 ms) puts the onset of the NP2 directly into the P600 time-window of the verb. The epoch length for the planned ERP analysis with 1000 ms after stimulus onset thus also contains the onset of the NP2. This might pose a problem for both time-windows: the P600 could be shifted by early effects evoked by the NP2 while early effects on the NP2 could suffer from the underlying wave form of the P600. In that regard, I was wondering if Indonesian allows to fill the position between the verb and NP2 with e.g., temporal adverbs or similar that could be kept constant across conditions in order to create a longer distance between the verb and NP2 and, thus, minimize the overlap of effects from different regions and the baseline correction issue.

That is a very good point. We have edited the materials to incorporate an adjunct (using various adverbs such as yesterday, immediately, continuously that collocate with the verb) between the verb and NP2 to allow for a more generous baseline for NP2 and a bigger analysis time window for the verb. The changes are shown on p13 and on the Appendices p27-31.

The stimulus is now as follows:

Condition NP1 Art VP Adjunct NP2 PP/RC

Active

Polisi itu menembak langsung perampok di malam hari.

Police that/the ACTshoot immediately robber at night.

(the/a) police immediately shoots (the/a) robber at night.

Passive Polisi itu ditembak langsung perampok di malam hari.

Police that/the PASshoot immediately robber at night

(the/a) police is immediately shot by (the/a) robber at night

4) Related to the previous point, I was wondering about the necessity to keep the semantic content of the passive and active structures identical. Currently, the swap from active and passive leads to a swap of the NP2 as well, because the “robber” (from the example) maintains the role of the shooter. This leads to a target manipulation which does not seem particularly necessary in this case, given that both entities similarly reasonably could take the active and passive role in the sentence. Judging from the material section, it appears as though the authors paid attention to follow this premise. This also again ties in with the earlier mentioned pretest. I believe that, in general, avoiding a target manipulation, when possible, should be preferred. While I understand concerns regarding the change of the semantic content of the sentence, it appears to me that this would be possible here in favor of “cleaner” comparisons.

Thank you for the feedback. Indeed, if prototypicality is not an issue there would not be grounds to reverse the roles of the NP2 between the conditions. However, we aimed to make this as comparable as possible to previous studies, and one which we modeled this study upon is the study in English by Jackson, Lorimor, & van Hell (2020) – here they kept the semantic content identical.

5) The Predictions section should be fleshed out more. While the authors specifically state predictions for the P600 component in the verb region, for the NP2 region they only mention a “generalized” increase of processing cost. Also, it is not clear to me whether prediction 3 (l. 505) is stated in regard to the NP2, the verb or both.

Given their literature review, it would be nice to see the predictions again being put into that context. Which time-windows are they considering? In favor of which interpretation/research would a component (or the lack of a component) be?

The prediction subsection has been expanded to improve clarity (p24-25). As you’ve mentioned in the following comment, it can be difficult to interpret a direct comparison between the findings of studies on case-marking languages and Indonesian (e.g. would the NP2 in Indonesian correspond with NP2 in Japanese/Basque, given the thematic information is provided in the preceding section of the sentence [V in Indonesian and NP1 in Japanese/Basque]?). However, we have added some additional information (p24) in the prediction to show what we can expect to find if the findings turn out to be comparable to the results of case-marking languages. As for the time windows and specific components, due to the nature of cluster-based permutation where adjacent sites and time points are correlated, we will be looking at the whole epoch (here we theorize that a ‘real’ effect should persist through multiple adjacent electrodes and a chunk of tens to hundreds of milliseconds/samples – a more detailed description of the procedure is provided by Maris and Oostenveld, 2007). However, were there to be an effect in either the verb or NP2, we expect it to be observed in the time windows and distributions corresponding to the LAN, N400, and/or P600 – all of which have been observed in similar studies and above 300ms. Specifically, for the verb, we would expect the passive to be more positive than the active for the 500-700ms time window, as this was what the study closest (Jackson et al., 2020) to this one reported in their critical region. For NP2, we expect some form of negativity to occur for the passive compared to the active between the 300-600ms time window – this was observed in studies which reported ERPs post-disambiguation.

Lastly, a comparably minor comment in relation to the predictions: The authors acknowledge the difference between certain languages, as for example that Basque and Japanese do not provide thematic information on the verb, while Indonesian entirely provides this information on the verb. As the region which allows for thematic assignment thereby shifts and might be entangled with different processes that are inherent to the respective region, a direct comparison of effects (or the lack of effects) might be a bit problematic. I agree that their planned study could highly contribute to the field and would yield valuable new insights, but a direct comparison should still be done with caution.

This is indeed challenging, and we plan to interpret the findings with care in regard to discussing it in the light of previous studies on languages with case marking.

Minor Comments:

1) As the authors discussed research on Japanese, I was thinking of a more recent study by Yano and Koizumi (Yano, M., & Koizumi, M. (2018). Processing of non-canonical word orders in (in) felicitous contexts: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33(10), 1340-1354.). While they investigate the effect of givenness in combination with word order, their findings might potentially enrich the discussion of the current study and provides a more recent reference to the study of word order in Japanese. Especially, as a focus of the literature review was put on studies on well-formed sentences.

Thank you for the input. We have incorporated the findings into the manuscript (p7).

2) I am not very familiar with the means of analysis planned by the authors. From my understanding, the cluster-level test statistic is not the standard in the literature. As such, I think it would be helpful if this section could be expanded a bit more.

We have revised the section to clarify the analysis procedure further (p23-24)

3) The sentence staring at line 348 appears to be erroneous.

4) The sentence in line 367 is missing a word (“a fixation cross will be shown on the in between trials and sets.”)

Both errors have been amended. (p15;p18)

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers v3 clean.docx

Click here for additional data file.

20 Jun 2022

27 Jun 2022

We would like to express our gratitude to the editor and reviewers for the constructive feedback that has helped improve the manuscript. All changes made are highlighted yellow. Responses to each individual point are provided below. We have also changed the timeline details to match the expected start date of our experiments (p26).

Reviewer 1

I appreciate the revisions and think it essentially looks good, but I still am confused about sentence examples (2) and (3) on page 5.

The provided English translations are identical for these two sentences ~"the guitar player discovered the singer", implying that the semantic roles are identical in the two sentences. But, as I understand it, the case marker on guitar player is different (nominative in (2), and accusative in (3)), which implies that the semantic roles should be reversed between (2) and (3), such that the translation for (2) should be as indicated, but the translation for (3) should be something like "the gifted singer discovered the talented guitar player". If so, then this needs to be revised accordingly. Unless I am missing something.

Thank you for pointing this out, we have revised the translation of (3) in p5.

Reviewer 2

The authors thoughtfully and satisfyingly addressed the raised concerns and comments. I think that the predictions were more clearly explained and easier to follow in the response than in the manuscript, but I don’t think this necessitates changes to the manuscript.

Overall, I think this will be a very interesting study and wish the best to the authors. I’m looking forward to the future results.

Thank you for the feedback, we have added a part of the discussion from the previous response letter into the predictions to improve the clarity of the subsection (p25).

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers 2.docx

Click here for additional data file.

15 Jul 2022

Neural Correlates of Thematic Role Assignment for Passives in Standard Indonesian

PONE-D-22-01301R2

Dear Dr. Jap,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Daniel Mirman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

25 Jul 2022

PONE-D-22-01301R2

Neural correlates of thematic role assignment for passives in Standard Indonesian

Dear Dr. Jap:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Daniel Mirman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE