Cloze probability does not only affect N400 amplitude: The case of complex prepositions

Abstract

Cloze-probability levels are inversely correlated with N400 amplitude, indicating an easier integration for expected words in semantic-pragmatic contexts. Here we exploited the prespecified standard order of complex prepositions and measured the ERPs time-locked to the last preposition in sentences in which complex prepositions were presented in their standard form or with the last preposition changed. The expected preposition elicited an N280 followed by an N400-700, two ERP components previously associated to the processing of closed-class words. The unexpected preposition elicited only an N280, and the N400-700 was reduced. These results reflect the specificity of the contextual constraints linked to the complex preposition word sequence.

Hierarchical levels of representation in language prediction: The influence of first language acquisition in highly proficient bilinguals

“…Similar to previous studies (discussed above) we recorded the ERPs time-locked to the target expected determiner as compared to an unexpected determiner (with opposite gender) that introduced a nonanomalous unexpected noun (En el mapa que tenían los piratas la cruz indicaba donde estaba el tesoro secreto/la perla mágica, "In the map that the pirates had, the cross indicated where the secret treasure/the magic pearl was."). In line with previous studies, we expected a larger N400 effect for determiners whose gender does not agree with the value of the expected target noun (but see Molinaro et al, 2008, for an alternative functional interpretation of this effect). Also, we explored ERPs on the critical noun (expected vs. unexpected) to explore the consequences of prediction (or absence of prediction, or deceived prediction) on word integration (Molinaro et al, 2010; in L2 literature see Martin et al, 2013).…”

Localising memory retrieval and syntactic composition: an fMRI study of naturalistic language comprehension

“…Eye-tracking and EEG work further documents this processing advantage across a wide range of MWE sub-types, e.g. binomials (Siyanova-Chanturia, Conklin, & Schmitt, 2011), phrasal verbs (Yaneva, Taslimipoor, Rohanian, & An Ha, 2017), complex prepositions (Molinaro, Canal, Vespignani, Pesciarelli, & Cacciari, 2013;Molinaro, Vespignani, Canal, Fonda, & Cacciari, 2008), nominal compounds (Molinaro & Carreiras, 2010;Molinaro, Carreiras, & Duñabeitia, 2012), lexical bundles (Tremblay & Baayen, 2010;Tremblay, Derwing, Libben, & Westbury, 2011), and idioms (Laurent, Denhières, Passerieux, Iakimova, & Hardy-Baylé, 2006;Rommers, Dijkstra, & Bastiaansen, 2013;Siyanova-Chanturia, Conklin, & Van Heuven, 2011;Strandburg et al, 1993;Underwood, Schmitt, & Galpin, 2004;Vespignani, Canal, Molinaro, Fonda, & Cacciari, 2010).…”

Is there a common oscillatory brain mechanism for producing and predicting language?

“…In a number of studies (Molinaro, Vespignani, Canal, Fonda & Cacciari, 2008;Molinaro, Canal, Vespignani, Pesciarelli & Cacciari, 2013b;Molinaro & Carreiras, 2010;Roehm, Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Rösler & Schlesewsky, 2007;Vespignani, Molinaro, Canal, Fonda & Cacciari, 2010) this has been associated to the fact that readers, before the presentation of the target word in multi-word scenarios, can develop a deterministic expectation. On the other hand, in the semantic constraining conditions, the context would pre-activate a semantic field (i.e., a set of semantically-related candidate words) and this would determine a more "probabilistic" expectation for the incoming word stimuli.…”