Abstract:We propose a new functional-anatomical mapping of the N400 and the P600 to a minimal cortical network for language comprehension. Our work is an example of a recent research strategy in cognitive neuroscience, where researchers attempt to align data regarding the nature and time-course of cognitive processing (from ERPs) with data on the cortical organization underlying it (from fMRI). The success of this “alignment” approach critically depends on the functional interpretation of relevant ERP components. Model… Show more
“…The functional role of these pathways is, however, subject to an ongoing debate (Baggio & Hagoort, 2011; Bornkessel‐Schlesewsky & Schlesewsky, 2013; Friederici, 2009, 2011, 2012; Hickok & Poeppel, 2004, 2007; Saur et al., 2008; Tyler et al., 2011; Weiller, Musso, Rijntjes, & Saur, 2009), which turns out to be difficult to settle as DTI does not allow for the determination of pathway directionality (Friederici, 2011). Nonetheless, the existence of these pathways clearly shows that there is white matter connectivity that supports the bi‐directional information sharing between the lpMTG and lIFG required for RI processing cycles (see Brouwer & Hoeks, 2013, for further discussion).…”
Ten years ago, researchers using event‐related brain potentials (ERPs) to study language comprehension were puzzled by what looked like a Semantic Illusion: Semantically anomalous, but structurally well‐formed sentences did not affect the N400 component—traditionally taken to reflect semantic integration—but instead produced a P600 effect, which is generally linked to syntactic processing. This finding led to a considerable amount of debate, and a number of complex processing models have been proposed as an explanation. What these models have in common is that they postulate two or more separate processing streams, in order to reconcile the Semantic Illusion and other semantically induced P600 effects with the traditional interpretations of the N400 and the P600. Recently, however, these multi‐stream models have been called into question, and a simpler single‐stream model has been proposed. According to this alternative model, the N400 component reflects the retrieval of word meaning from semantic memory, and the P600 component indexes the integration of this meaning into the unfolding utterance interpretation. In the present paper, we provide support for this “Retrieval–Integration (RI)” account by instantiating it as a neurocomputational model. This neurocomputational model is the first to successfully simulate the N400 and P600 amplitude in language comprehension, and simulations with this model provide a proof of concept of the single‐stream RI account of semantically induced patterns of N400 and P600 modulations.
“…The functional role of these pathways is, however, subject to an ongoing debate (Baggio & Hagoort, 2011; Bornkessel‐Schlesewsky & Schlesewsky, 2013; Friederici, 2009, 2011, 2012; Hickok & Poeppel, 2004, 2007; Saur et al., 2008; Tyler et al., 2011; Weiller, Musso, Rijntjes, & Saur, 2009), which turns out to be difficult to settle as DTI does not allow for the determination of pathway directionality (Friederici, 2011). Nonetheless, the existence of these pathways clearly shows that there is white matter connectivity that supports the bi‐directional information sharing between the lpMTG and lIFG required for RI processing cycles (see Brouwer & Hoeks, 2013, for further discussion).…”
Ten years ago, researchers using event‐related brain potentials (ERPs) to study language comprehension were puzzled by what looked like a Semantic Illusion: Semantically anomalous, but structurally well‐formed sentences did not affect the N400 component—traditionally taken to reflect semantic integration—but instead produced a P600 effect, which is generally linked to syntactic processing. This finding led to a considerable amount of debate, and a number of complex processing models have been proposed as an explanation. What these models have in common is that they postulate two or more separate processing streams, in order to reconcile the Semantic Illusion and other semantically induced P600 effects with the traditional interpretations of the N400 and the P600. Recently, however, these multi‐stream models have been called into question, and a simpler single‐stream model has been proposed. According to this alternative model, the N400 component reflects the retrieval of word meaning from semantic memory, and the P600 component indexes the integration of this meaning into the unfolding utterance interpretation. In the present paper, we provide support for this “Retrieval–Integration (RI)” account by instantiating it as a neurocomputational model. This neurocomputational model is the first to successfully simulate the N400 and P600 amplitude in language comprehension, and simulations with this model provide a proof of concept of the single‐stream RI account of semantically induced patterns of N400 and P600 modulations.
“…Most of these models have offered detailed proposals about the neural correlates underlying meaning composition, involving different perisylvian left-lateralized brain regions (Binder & Desai, 2011;Friederici, 2012;Hagoort, 2013;Lau, Phillips, & Poeppel, 2008;Patterson, Nestor, & Rogers, 2007). Although these models present notable differences with respect to the main nodes involved and the interactions between them during semantic processes, all of them agree on the participation and roles of the posterior middle/superior temporal gyrus (MTG/STG) and inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) during language processing (see also Brouwer & Hoeks, 2013;Jefferies, 2013). In many of these models, accessing lexical/semantic information related to single words is associated with posterior MTG/STG activation (e.g., Friederici, 2012;Hagoort, 2013;Lau et al, 2008;Snijders et al, 2009) while the left IFG appears to orchestrate the activity of the whole semantic network via controlled retrieval of lexical/semantic information based on top-down processes (Badre & Wagner, 2007;Hagoort, 2013;Thompson-Schill, D'Esposito, Aguirre, & Farah, 1997;Thompson-Schill, D'Esposito, & Kan, 1999).…”
“…Frank and colleagues (2015), for instance, report a reliable correlation between N400 amplitude and surprisal. Critically, however, the RetrievalIntegration account predicts that an increase in N400 amplitude typically cooccurs with an increase in P600 amplitude (Brouwer et al, , 2012Brouwer & Hoeks, 2013;). An increase in P600 amplitude, on the other hand, does not necessarily cooccur with an increase in N400 amplitude (see Bornkessel-Schlesewsky & Schlesewsky, 2008;Brouwer et al, 2012;Kuperberg, 2007;for reviews).…”
Section: Testing the Model's Predictionsmentioning
The processing difficulty of each word we encounter in a sentence is affected by both our prior linguistic experience and our general knowledge about the world. Computational models of incremental language processing have, however, been limited in accounting for the influence of world knowledge. We develop an incremental model of language comprehension that constructs-on a word-by-word basis-rich, probabilistic situation model representations. To quantify linguistic processing effort, we adopt Surprisal Theory, which asserts that the processing difficulty incurred by a word is inversely proportional to its expectancy (Hale, 2001;Levy, 2008). In contrast with typical language model implementations of surprisal, the proposed model instantiates a novel comprehension-centric metric of surprisal that reflects the likelihood of the unfolding utterance meaning as established after processing each word. Simulations are presented that demonstrate that linguistic experience and world knowledge are integrated in the model at the level of interpretation and combine in determining online expectations.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.