Monitoring in Language Perception

Meerendonk, Nan van de; Kolk, Herman; Chwilla, Dorothee J.; Vissers, Constance

doi:10.1111/j.1749-818x.2009.00163.x

Cited by 151 publications

(148 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

138

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The hypothesis that the P600 effect reflects a more general reanalysis has been strengthened by a number of recent studies (for reviews on these studies see Kolk and Chwilla, 2007;Kuperberg, 2007;Van de Meerendonk et al, 2009), demonstrating P600 effects to different kinds of semantic anomalies (e.g., Ganushchak and Schiller, 2010;Hoeks et al, 2004;Kim and Osterhout, 2005;Kolk et al, 2003;Kuperberg et al, 2006Kuperberg et al, , 2007Kuperberg et al, , 2003b; Van de Meerendonk et al, 2010;Van Herten et al, 2006, 2005. Furthermore, P600 effects were found to picture-sentence mismatches in which the sentences violated the semantics of a previously shown picture (Vissers et al, 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Furthermore, P600 effects were found to picture-sentence mismatches in which the sentences violated the semantics of a previously shown picture (Vissers et al, 2008). The P600 effects to semantic anomalies were unexpected, as it was the general assumption that semantic anomalies affected the N400, a negative ERP component that peaks around 400 ms after critical word onset (e.g., Kutas and Hillyard, 1984).According to the monitoring theory of language perception (for a review see Van de Meerendonk et al, 2009), common to all these studies is the assumption that there was a strong expectation for a certain linguistic element which was not met. This resulted in the coactivation of competing representations, i.e., the expected and the observed element.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to the monitoring theory of language perception (for a review see Van de Meerendonk et al, 2009), common to all these studies is the assumption that there was a strong expectation for a certain linguistic element which was not met. This resulted in the coactivation of competing representations, i.e., the expected and the observed element.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Monitoring in language perception: Electrophysiological and hemodynamic responses to spelling violations

et al. 2011

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The monitoring theory of language perception proposes that competing representations that are caused by strong expectancy violations can trigger a conflict which elicits reprocessing of the input to check for possible processing errors. This monitoring process is thought to be reflected by the P600 component in the EEG. The present study further investigated this monitoring process by comparing syntactic and spelling violations in an EEG and an fMRI experiment. To assess the effect of conflict strength, misspellings were embedded in sentences that were weakly or strongly predictive of a critical word. In support of the monitoring theory, syntactic and spelling violations elicited similarly distributed P600 effects. Furthermore, the P600 effect was larger to misspellings in the strongly compared to the weakly predictive sentences. The fMRI results showed that both syntactic and spelling violations increased activation in the left inferior frontal gyrus (lIFG), while only the misspellings activated additional areas. Conflict strength did not affect the hemodynamic response to spelling violations. These results extend the idea that the lIFG is involved in implementing cognitive control in the presence of representational conflicts in general to the processing of errors in language perception. © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. General introduction"Mistakes are a fact of life. It is the response to error that counts" (Nikki Giovanni). This quote nicely illustrates that we are bound to make mistakes but that we can also use the thereby obtained information to adjust our behaviour. To learn from our mistakes, however, we must be able to detect them. The detection of errors and the adjustments in behaviour require cognitive control. Cognitive control processes manage and guide other cognitive processes according to internal goals. One aspect of cognitive control is monitoring, which deals with the detection and repair of errors. Errors occur when there is a mismatch between what we intend or expect and what we do or observe. When such a mismatch is detected, compensatory adjustments are triggered in the processing pathways that are involved, leading to a repair.Mistakes, of course, occur in various domains, and here we are interested in the language domain. In this field, the main focus has been on error monitoring in language production. For language production, researchers have been interested in speech errors and their repairs (for a review see Levelt, 1983). However, in language perception error monitoring takes place as well. For example, sometimes we mishear what another person is saying and ask for a clarification: "Did I understand you correctly…?". Another type of perceptual language errors are mistakes that are made while reading a text. Kaufman and Obler (1995) call these 'slips of the eye', and showed that normal adult readers make various kinds of these errors. For instance, sometimes words are inserted, omitted or exchanged, the parsing of a word or sentence can be erroneous (e.g., reading posts as...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 94%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Monitoring in language perception: Electrophysiological and hemodynamic responses to spelling violations

et al. 2011

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We therefore expect recruitment of conflict-monitoring areas, including the dorso-lateral prefrontal cortex and the anterior cingulate cortex bilaterally, to emerge from the comparison between the two violations and correct agreement (Agreement Violation > Correct Agreement contrast). Previous work on the processing of agreement and other morphosyntactic dependencies has consistently demonstrated the involvement of this network as a result of a (task-driven) mismatch detection process (see Van de Meerendonk et al 2009 for a review; Kuperberg et al 2008;Nieuwland et al 2012;Quiñones et al 2014). …”

Section: The Current Studymentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Further corroboration 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 27 for this interpretation comes from the fact that both person and number agreement violations elicit a P600 (cf. Mancini et al 2011), an effect that has been linked to task-related conflict-monitoring mechanisms (see van de Meerendonk et al 2009 for a discussion) and the sources of which sources have been localized in the anterior cingulate cortex (Du et al 2013;Olichney et al 2010). …”

Section: The Role Of the Bilateral Fronto-parietal Network In Agreemementioning

confidence: 99%

Disentangling meaning in the brain: Left temporal involvement in agreement processing

Mancini

Quiñones

Molinaro

et al. 2017

Cortex

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sentence comprehension is successfully accomplished by means of a form-to-meaning mapping procedure that relies on the extraction of morphosyntactic information from the input and its mapping to higher-level semantic-discourse representations. In this study, we sought to determine whether neuroanatomically distinct brain regions are involved in the processing of different types of information contained in the propositional meaning of a sentence, namely person and number. While person information indexes the role that an individual has in discourse (i.e. the speaker, the addressee or the entity being talked about by speaker and addressee), number indicates its cardinality (i.e. a single entity vs. a multitude of entities). An event-related fMRI experiment was run using agreement-correct and person-and number-violated sentences in Spanish, to disentangle the processing mechanisms and neural substrates associated with the building of discourse and cardinality representations. The contrast between person and number violations showed qualitative and quantitative differences. A greater response for person compared to number was found in the left middle temporal gyrus (LMTG). However, critically, a posterior-to-anterior functional gradient emerged within this region. While the posterior portion of the LMTG was sensitive to both person and number violations, the anterior portion of this region showed selective response for person violations. These results confirm that the comprehension of the propositional meaning of a sentence results from a composite, feature-sensitive mechanism of form-to-meaning mapping in which the nodes of the language network are differentially involved

show abstract

Electrophysiological Correlates of Second-Language Acquisition: From Words to Sentences

Caffarra

Carreiras

2023

Neuromethods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Monitoring in Language Perception

Cited by 151 publications

References 53 publications

Monitoring in language perception: Electrophysiological and hemodynamic responses to spelling violations

Monitoring in language perception: Electrophysiological and hemodynamic responses to spelling violations

Disentangling meaning in the brain: Left temporal involvement in agreement processing

Electrophysiological Correlates of Second-Language Acquisition: From Words to Sentences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About