Monitoring in Language Perception: Mild and Strong Conflicts Elicit Different ERP Patterns

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

doi:10.1162/jocn.2008.21170

Cited by 171 publications

(153 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

142

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, the Semantic Attraction account cannot explain the P600-effect for the sentences of van Herten et al (2005). van Herten et al (2005van Herten et al ( , 2006 offered an explanation for the presence of an SIE in terms of a framework called Monitoring Theory (see also Kolk and Chwilla, 2007;Kolk et al, 2003;van de Meerendonk et al, 2009van de Meerendonk et al, , 2010Vissers et al, 2007;Ye and Zhou, 2008). They proposed an architecture in which an algorithmic, syntax-driven stream works in parallel to a plausibility heuristic driven by world knowledge.…”

Section: 1mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of studies (Hoeks et al, 2004;van de Meerendonk et al, 2010;van Herten et al, 2006;van Petten and Luka, 2006; for an overview, see van Petten and Luka, in press) have shown that some sentences engender biphasic N400/P600-effects and not only an N400-effect (for implausibility), or only a P600-effect (for conflicting streams). Hoeks et al (2004), for instance, observed such a biphasic pattern in response to 'De speer heeft de atleten opgesomd' (lit: The javelin has the athletes summarized) relative to 'De speer werd door de atleten geworpen' (lit: The javelin was by the athletes thrown).…”

Section: Monitoring Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Getting real about Semantic Illusions: Rethinking the functional role of the P600 in language comprehension

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In traditional theories of language comprehension, syntactic and semantic processing are inextricably linked. This assumption has been challenged by the 'Semantic Illusion Effect' found in studies using Event Related brain Potentials. Semantically anomalous sentences did not produce the expected increase in N400 amplitude but rather one in P600 amplitude. To explain these findings, complex models have been devised in which an independent semantic processing stream can arrive at a sentence interpretation that may differ from the interpretation prescribed by the syntactic structure of the sentence. We review five such multi-stream models and argue that they do not account for the full range of relevant results because they assume that the amplitude of the N400 indexes some form of semantic integration. Based on recent evidence we argue that N400 amplitude might reflect the retrieval of lexical information from memory. On this view, the absence of an N400-effect in Semantic Illusion sentences can be explained in terms of priming. Furthermore, we suggest that semantic integration, which has previously been linked to the N400 component, might be reflected in the P600 instead. When combined, these functional interpretations result in a single-stream account of language processing that can explain all of the Semantic Illusion data.

show abstract

Section: 1mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Monitoring Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Getting real about Semantic Illusions: Rethinking the functional role of the P600 in language comprehension

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many have shown that comprehenders can readily detect the implausibility that results from the reversal of the arguments' roles (e.g., Kolk et al, 2003). Further, ERP studies across different languages have shown that argument role reversals elicit a larger late positivity (a P600 effect; e.g., Kim & Osterhout, 2005;Kolk et al, 2003;Stroud & Phillips, 2012;Ye & Zhou, 2008), which has been associated with error detection and reanalysis (Coulson, King, & Kutas, 1998;Hagoort, Brown, & Groothusen, 1993;Hahne & Friederici, 1999;Kuperberg, 2007;Osterhout & Holcomb, 1992;van de Meerendonk, Kolk, Vissers, & Chwilla, 2010). These results suggest that information about the arguments' structural roles can immediately impact comprehenders' interpretation, but it does not seem to affect the cognitive processes that underlie the N400 response.…”

Section: Prediction In the Processing Of Thematic Relationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wait a second! delayed impact of argument roles on on-line verb prediction

Chow

Lau

Wang

et al. 2018

Language, Cognition and Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comprehenders can use rich contextual information to anticipate upcoming input on the fly, but recent findings suggest that salient information about argument roles may not impact verb prediction. We took advantage of the word order properties of Mandarin Chinese to examine the time course with which argument role information impacts verb prediction. We isolated the contribution of argument role information by manipulating the order of pre-verbal noun phrase arguments while holding lexical information constant, and we examined its effects on accessing the verb in long-term semantic memory by measuring the amplitude of the N400 component.Experiment 1 showed when the verb appeared immediately after its arguments, even strongly constraining argument role information failed to modulate the N400 response to the verb. An N400 effect emerged in Experiment 2 when the verb appeared at a greater delay. Experiment 3 corroborated the contrast between the first two experiments through a within-participants manipulation of the time interval between the arguments and the verb, by varying the position of an adverbial phrase. These results suggest time is a key factor governing how diverse contextual information contributes to predictions. Here argument role information is shown to impact verb prediction, but its effect is not immediate.3

show abstract

“…The second factor, conflict strength, has been manipulated in some studies based on the idea that for reasons of efficiency only representational conflicts that are sufficiently strong (i.e., pass a certain 'threshold') should trigger reprocessing of the input. For example, Van de Meerendonk et al (2010) induced differences in conflict strength by varying plausibility. In the sentence context the critical words could either be plausible, mildly implausible, or deeply implausible.…”

Section: General Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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: 99%

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

Monitoring in Language Perception: Mild and Strong Conflicts Elicit Different ERP Patterns

Cited by 171 publications

References 53 publications

Getting real about Semantic Illusions: Rethinking the functional role of the P600 in language comprehension

Getting real about Semantic Illusions: Rethinking the functional role of the P600 in language comprehension

Wait a second! delayed impact of argument roles on on-line verb prediction

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About