N400 ERPs for actions: building meaning in context

Abstract

Converging neuroscientific evidence suggests the existence of close links between language and sensorimotor cognition. Accordingly, during the comprehension of meaningful actions, our brain would recruit semantic-related operations similar to those associated with the processing of language information. Consistent with this view, electrophysiological findings show that the N400 component, traditionally linked to the semantic processing of linguistic material, can also be elicited by action-related material. This review outlines recent data from N400 studies that examine the understanding of action events. We focus on three specific domains, including everyday action comprehension, co-speech gesture integration, and the semantics involved in motor planning and execution. Based on the reviewed findings, we suggest that both negativities (the N400 and the action-N400) reflect a common neurocognitive mechanism involved in the construction of meaning through the expectancies created by previous experiences and current contextual information. To shed light on how this process is instantiated in the brain, a testable contextual fronto-temporo-parietal model is proposed.

Distinct brain signatures of content and structure violation during action observation

“…Recent studies report a similar N400 potential when the so-called "world-knowledge" about typical human actions is violated (Proverbio and Riva, 2009), or when tools are used in a noncanonical manner (Balconi and Caldiroli, 2011). As a consequence, it has been proposed that the N400 may not be a purely linguistic marker of semantic processing, but it may rather extend to other cognitive domains, including action observation (Amoruso et al 2013). Our results corroborate this interpretation, with some intriguing differences.…”

“…grasping a knife to brush teeth). Both violations do not permit goal achievement and elicit a large frontal negative deflection in the electroencephalogram (EEG) (Amoruso, Gelormini, Aboitiz, Alvarez González, Manes, Cardona and Ibanez, 2013;Balconi & Caldiroli, 2011). …”

“…semantic violations) usually elicit a negative ERP peaking around 400 ms after stimulus onset (for reviews see, e.g. Kutas & Federmeier, 2011;Amoruso et al, 2013). In contrast, a structure violation should elicit an early anterior negativity (with latencies of around 180-300 ms).…”

Picturing meaning: an ERP study on the integration of left or right-handed first-person perspective pictures into a sentence context

“…seeing a hand in a grasping position, for both the passing and receiving action; Shibata, Gyoba, & Suzuki, 2009) or when stories in the form of a series of pictures have an incongruent picture ending (West & Holcomb, 2002; see also: Mudrik, Lamy, & Deouell, 2010). These action-elicited N400 waves resemble the shape and timing of linguistic N400 waves, suggesting that the same neural mechanisms are involved in linguistic integration, as well as integration of information from the visual modality (Amoruso et al, 2013).…”

Detección de información oculta mediante potenciales relacionados con eventos

“…Esta idea ha llevado a muchos investigadores a estudiar los procesos de memoria implicados en la N400 (preactivación o facilitación, en dominios de información diferentes al dominio verbal). Estudios recientes muestran que este componente puede ser obtenido también por percepción de acciones y movimientos humanos que resultan incongruentes con la lógica conocida por el sujeto y reflejan un mecanismo neurocognitivo común relacionado con la construcción del significado mediante las expectativas creadas por experiencias previas y la información contextual actual (Amoruso et al, 2013;Amoruso et al, 2014).…”