ERPs reveal how semantic and syntactic processing unfold across parafoveal and foveal vision during sentence comprehension

References

• Altarriba, J., Kambe, G., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (2001). Semantic codes are not used in integrating information across eye fixations in reading: Evidence from fluent spanish-English bilinguals. Perception & Psychophysics, 63(5), 875–890. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194444
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Barber, H, & Carreiras, M. (2005). Grammatical gender and number agreement in Spanish: An ERP comparison. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 17(1), 137–153.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barber, H. A., Doñamayor, N., Kutas, M., & Münte, T. (2010). Parafoveal N400 effect during sentence reading. Neuroscience Letters, 479(2), 152–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2010.05.053
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barber, H. A., van der Meij, M., & Kutas, M. (2013). An electrophysiological analysis of contextual and temporal constraints on parafoveal word processing. Psychophysiology, 50(1), 48–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01489.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berndt, R S, & Caramazza, A. (1980). A redefinition of the syndrome of Broca's aphasia: Implications for a neuropsychological model of language. Applied psycholinguistics, 1(3), 225–278.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biassou, N, Obler, L K, Nespoulous, J L, Dordain, M, & Harris, K S. (1997). Dual processing of open-and closed-class words. Brain and Language, 57(3), 360–373.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradley, D. C., & Garrett, M. F. (1983). Hemisphere differences in the recognition of closed and open class words. Neuropsychologia, 21(2), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(83)90082-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briihl, D., & Inhoff, A. W. (1995). Integrating information across fixations during reading: The use of orthographic bodies and of exterior letters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(1), 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.1.55
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brothers, T., & Traxler, M. J. (2016). Anticipating syntax during reading: Evidence from the boundary change paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(12), 1894–1906. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000257
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brouwer, H, Crocker, M W, Venhuizen, N J, & Hoeks, J C. (2017). A neurocomputational model of the N400 and the P600 in language processing. Cognitive science, 41, 1318–1352.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, C. M., Hagoort, P., & Keurs, M. T. (1999). Electrophysiological signatures of visual lexical processing: Open-and closed-class words. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11(3), 261–281. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892999563382
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brunelliere, A., Hoen, M., & Dominey, P. F. (2005). ERP correlates of lexical analysis: N280 reflects processing complexity rather than category or frequency effects. Neuroreport, 16(13), 1435–1438. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.wnr.0000177008.98860.69
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brysbaert, Marc, & New, Boris. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 977–990. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.977
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caramazza, A, & Zurif, E B. (1976). Dissociation of algorithmic and heuristic processes in language comprehension: Evidence from aphasia. Brain and language, 3(4), 572–582.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chow, W. Y., & Phillips, C. (2013). No semantic illusions in the “semantic P600” phenomenon: ERP evidence from mandarin Chinese. Brain Research, 1506, 76–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2013.02.016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coulson, S., King, J. W., & Kutas, M. (1998). Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13(1), 21–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/016909698386582
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Degno, F, & Liversedge, S P. (2020). Eye movements and fixation-related potentials in reading: a review, 4.
   Google Scholar
• DeLong, K. A., Quante, L., & Kutas, M. (2014). Predictability, plausibility, and two late ERP positivities during written sentence comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 61, 150–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.06.016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dimigen, O, Kliegl, R, & Sommer, W. (2012). Trans-saccadic parafoveal preview benefits in fluent reading: A study with fixation-related brain potentials. Neuroimage, 62(1), 381–393.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Federmeier, K. D., Wlotko, E. W., De Ochoa-Dewald, E., & Kutas, M. (2007). Multiple effects of sentential constraint on word processing. Brain Research, 1146, 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.06.101
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friederici, A. D. (1985). Levels of processing and vocabulary types: Evidence from on-line comprehension in normals and agrammatics. Cognition, 19(2), 133–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(85)90016-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friederici, A D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in cognitive sciences, 6(2), 78–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friederici, A D, & Kilborn, K. (1989). Temporal constraints on language processing: Syntactic priming in Broca's aphasia. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 1(3), 262–272.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Friederici, A. D., Opitz, B., & Von Cramon, D. Y. (2000). Segregating semantic and syntactic aspects of processing in the human brain: An fMRI investigation of different word types. Cerebral Cortex, 10(7), 698–705. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/10.7.698
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friederici, A. D., Pfeifer, E., & Hahne, A. (1993). Event-related brain potentials during natural speech processing: Effects of semantic, morphological and syntactic violations. Cognitive Brain Research, 1(3), 183–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/0926-6410(93)90026-2
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Friederici, A D, Weissenborn, J, & Kail, M. (1991). Pronoun comprehension in aphasia: A comparison of three languages. Brain and language, 41(2), 289–310.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon, P. C., Plummer, P., & Choi, W. (2013). See before you jump: Full recognition of parafoveal words precedes skips during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(2), 633–641. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028881
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grainger, J., Midgley, K. J., & Holcomb, P. J. (2016). Trans-saccadic repetition priming: ERPs reveal on-line integration of information across words. Neuropsychologia, 80, 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.11.025
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagoort, P., Brown, C., & Groothusen, J. (1993). The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8(4), 439–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969308407585
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inhoff, A. W. (1989). Lexical access during eye fixations in reading: Are word access codes used to integrate lexical information across interword fixations? Journal of Memory and Language, 28(4), 444–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90021-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inhoff, A. W. (1989). Parafoveal processing of words and saccade computation during eye fixations in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15(3), 544–555. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.15.3.544
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inhoff, A. W. (1990). Integrating information across eye fixations in reading: The role of letter and word units. Acta Psychologica, 73(3), 281–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(90)90027-D
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inhoff, A. W., & Tousman, S. (1990). Lexical integration across saccades in reading. Psychological Research, 52(4), 330–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00868065
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaan, E, Harris, A, Gibson, E, & Holcomb, P. (2000). The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and cognitive processes, 15(2), 159–201.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keurs, T., Brown, M., Hagoort, C. M., & Stegeman, P., & F, D. (1999). Electrophysiological manifestations of open-and closed-class words in patients with broca's aphasia with agrammatic comprehension: An event-related brain potential study. Brain, 122(5), 839–854. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/122.5.839
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kim, A., & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(2), 205–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.10.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, A, & Sikos, L. (2011). Conflict and surrender during sentence processing: An ERP study of syntax-semantics interaction. Brain and Language, 118(1-2), 15–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuperberg, G R. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain research, 1146, 23–49.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Event-related brain potentials to semantically inappropriate and surprisingly large words. Biological Psychology, 11(2), 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-0511(80)90046-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1983). Event-related brain potentials to grammatical errors and semantic anomalies. Memory & Cognition, 11(5), 539–550. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196991
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307(5947), 161–163. https://doi.org/10.1038/307161a0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leckey, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2020). The P3b and P600 (s): positive contributions to language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 57(7), e13351. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13351
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, N., Niefind, F., Wang, S., Sommer, W., & Dimigen, O. (2015). Parafoveal processing in reading Chinese sentences: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Psychophysiology, 52(10), 1361–1374. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12502
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mancini, S, Molinaro, N, Rizzi, L, & Carreiras, M. (2011). A person is not a number: Discourse involvement in subject-verb agreement computation. Brain research, 1410, 64–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meade, G., Declerck, M., Holcomb, P. J., & Grainger, J. (2021). Parallel semantic processing in the flankers task: Evidence from the N400. Brain and Language, 219, 104965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2021.104965
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metzner, P, Von Der Malsburg, T, Vasishth, S, & Rösler, F. (2017). The importance of reading naturally: Evidence from combined recordings of eye movements and electric brain potentials. Cognitive Science, 41, 1232–1263.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mirault, J., Yeaton, J., Broqua, F., Dufau, S., Holcomb, P. J., & Grainger, J. (2020). Parafoveal-on-foveal repetition effects in sentence reading: A co-registered eye-tracking and electroencephalogram study. Psychophysiology, 57(8), e13553. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13553
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molinaro, N, Barber, H A, Caffarra, S, & Carreiras, M. (2015). On the left anterior negativity (LAN): The case of morphosyntactic agreement. Cortex, 66, 156–159.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molinaro, N, Barber, H A, & Carreiras, M. (2011). Grammatical agreement processing in reading: ERP findings and future directions. cortex, 47(8), 908–930.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Münte, T. F., Wieringa, B. M., Weyerts, H., Szentkuti, A., Matzke, M., & Johannes, S. (2001). Differences in brain potentials to open and closed class words: Class and frequency effects. Neuropsychologia, 39(1), 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(00)00095-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neville, H. J., Mills, D. L., & Lawson, D. S. (1992). Fractionating language: Different neural subsystems with different sensitive periods. Cerebral Cortex, 2(3), 244–258. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/2.3.244
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nobre, A. C., & McCarthy, G. (1994). Language-related ERPs: Scalp distributions and modulation by word type and semantic priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 6(3), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1994.6.3.233
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nobre, A. C., Price, C. J., Turner, R., & Friston, K. (1997). Selective processing of nouns and function words in the human brain. Neuroimage, 5(4), 53.
   Google Scholar
• O'rourke, P L, & Van Petten, C. (2011). Morphological agreement at a distance: Dissociation between early and late components of the event-related brain potential. Brain research, 1392, 62–79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osterhout, L., Bersick, M., & McKinnon, R. (1997). Brain potentials elicited by words: Word length and frequency predict the latency of an early negativity. Biological Psychology, 46(2), 143–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-0511(97)05250-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(6), 785–806. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(92)90039-Z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osterhout, L., Holcomb, P. J., & Swinney, D. A. (1994). Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: Evidence of the application of verb information during parsing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(4), 786–803. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.4.786
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Payne, B. R., & Federmeier, K. D. (2017). Pace yourself: Intraindividual variability in context use revealed by self-paced event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 29(5), 837–854. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01090
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Payne, B. R., Stites, M. C., & Federmeier, K. D. (2019). Event-related brain potentials reveal how multiple aspects of semantic processing unfold across parafoveal and foveal vision during sentence reading. Psychophysiology, 56(10), e13432. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13432
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollatsek, A., Lesch, M., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1992). Phonological codes are used in integrating information across saccades in word identification and reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(1), 148–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.18.1.148
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pulvermüller, F. (1995). Agrammatism: behavioral description and neurobiological explanation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7(2), 165–181.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, K., Balota, D. A., & Pollatsek, A. (1986). Against parafoveal semantic preprocessing during eye fixations in reading. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie, 40(4), 473–483. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0080111
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, K., & Morris, R. K. (1992). Eye movement control in reading: Evidence against semantic preprocessing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(1), 163–172. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.18.1.163
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Risse, S., & Kliegl, R. (2012). Evidence for delayed parafoveal-on-foveal effects from word n+2 in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(4), 1026–1042. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027735
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schotter, E. R., & Jia, A. (2016). Semantic and plausibility preview benefit effects in English: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(12), 1839–1866. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000281
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snell, J., Meade, G., Meeter, M., Holcomb, P., & Grainger, J. (2019). An electrophysiological investigation of orthographic spatial integration in reading. Neuropsychologia, 129, 276–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.04.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stites, M. C., Payne, B. R., & Federmeier, K. D. (2017). Getting ahead of yourself: Parafoveal word expectancy modulates the N400 during sentence reading. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 17(3), 475–490. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-016-0492-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanner, D, Morgan-Short, K, & Luck, S J. (2015). How inappropriate high-pass filters can produce artifactual effects and incorrect conclusions in ERP studies of language and cognition. Psychophysiology, 52(8), 997–1009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanner, D, & Van Hell, J G. (2014). ERPs reveal individual differences in morphosyntactic processing. Neuropsychologia, 56, 289–301.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van De Meerendonk, N., Kolk, H. H., Vissers, C. T. W., & Chwilla, D. J. (2010). Monitoring in language perception: Mild and strong conflicts elicit different ERP patterns. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(1), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.21170
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Herten, M, Kolk, H H, & Chwilla, D J. (2005). An ERP study of P600 effects elicited by semantic anomalies. Cognitive brain research, 22(2), 241–255.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (1991). Influences of semantic and syntactic context on open-and closed-class words. Memory & Cognition, 19(1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198500
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Petten, C., & Luka, B. J. (2012). Prediction during language comprehension: Benefits, costs, and ERP components. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 83(2), 176–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.09.015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veldre, A., & Andrews, S. (2016). Is semantic preview benefit due to relatedness or plausibility? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(7), 939–952. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000200
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veldre, A., & Andrews, S. (2018). Beyond cloze probability: Parafoveal processing of semantic and syntactic information during reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 100, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.12.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wlotko, E W, & Federmeier, K D. (2012). So that's what you meant! Event-related potentials reveal multiple aspects of context use during construction of message-level meaning. NeuroImage, 62(1), 356–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.054
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar