Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Argument Retrieval and Reordering: An fMRI and EEG Study on Sentence Processing

Abstract

In sentence processing, it is still unclear how the neural language network successfully establishes argument–verb dependencies in its spatiotemporal neuronal dynamics. Previous work has suggested that the establishment of subject–verb and object–verb dependencies requires argument retrieval from working memory, and that dependency establishment in object-first sentences additionally necessitates argument reordering. We examine the spatiotemporal neuronal dynamics of the brain regions that subserve these sub-processes by crossing an argument reordering factor (i.e., subject-first versus object-first sentences) with an argument retrieval factor (i.e., short versus long argument–verb dependencies) in German. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), we found that reordering demands focally activate the left pars opercularis (Broca’s area), while storage and retrieval demands activated left temporo-parietal (TP) regions. In addition, when analyzing the time course of fMRI-informed equivalent current dipole sources in the EEG at the subcategorizing verb, we found that activity in the TP-region occurs relatively early (40–180 ms), followed by activity in Broca’s area (300–500 ms). These findings were matched by topographical correlation analyses of fMRI activations in EEG sensor space, showing that, in the scalp potential, TP-region activity surfaces as an early positivity and IFG activity as a later positivity in the scalp potential. These results provide fine-grained evidence for spatiotemporally separable sub-processes of argument retrieval and reordering in sentence processing.

Frontal–posterior theta oscillations reflect memory retrieval during sentence comprehension

“…A C C E P T E D ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 19 Evans, 1993;Ravizza, Delgado, Chein, Becker, & Fiez, 2004;Ravizza, Hazeltine, Ruiz, & Zhu, 2011;Wager & Smith, 2003) and sentence comprehension under increased verbal-workingmemory demands (Grossman et al, 2002;Meyer, Obleser, Anwander, et al, 2012;Meyer et al, 2013;Novais-Santos et al, 2007)-in particular during retrieval (Buchsbaum et al, 2011;Henson et al, 1999;Meyer, Obleser, Kiebel, et al, 2012;Öztekin et al, 2009). Furthermore, lesions to the parietal cortex have been found to impair visual (Berryhill & Olson, 2008) as well as verbal working memory (Baldo & Dronkers, 2006;Fridriksson et al, 2010).…”

“…13 components analysis, we collapsed the 3-D time series of dipole moments across the three spatial dimensions into a single time series corresponding to the largest eigenvalue for each trial and grid point (Gross et al, 2001;Meyer, Obleser, Kiebel, & Friederici, 2012;Supp, Schlogl, Trujillo-Barreto, Muller, & Gruber, 2007), which then underwent the same time-frequency analysis as the sensor-level data. Coherence analysis for each condition was performed on the complex spectra (Rappelsberger & Petsche, 1988), pairing each grid point from each sourceactivity cluster with each grid point from all other source-activity clusters (see Results).…”

The neural oscillations of speech processing and language comprehension: state of the art and emerging mechanisms

“…To decode compositional meaning, single words are chunked into syntactic phrases (Chomsky, ; Baddeley et al ., ; Cowan, ; Meyer et al ., ; Bonhage et al ., ). To decode relational meaning, phrases early in a sentence must be stored in working memory and retrieved later in the sentence (King & Just, ; Nicol et al ., ; Lewis, ; Gibson, ; Lewis et al ., ; Meyer et al ., , , ; Futrell et al ., ). Also, the meaning of all words of a sentence must be retrieved from long‐term memory for comprehension (Mormann et al ., ; Bastiaansen et al ., ; MacGregor et al ., ; Meyer et al ., ).…”

Word Order, Action, and the Brain: A Reply to Arbib

“…, ; Meyer et al . ,). Interestingly, Tomasello () argues that the ability to create and think about socially defined categories of participant roles – e.g., giver/receiver, seller/buyer, lender/borrower – may be uniquely human, since such roles appear to be beyond the comprehension of not only monkeys but also apes.…”

“…Still, it is notable that, as mentioned in my original paper, a number of neuroscientific studies have demonstrated that BA44 is engaged significantly more by non‐canonical than canonical constructions (for two recent examples, see Meyer et al . ,; for qualifications, see Caplan et al . ).…”