2015
DOI: 10.1080/23273798.2015.1077978
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Is there a common oscillatory brain mechanism for producing and predicting language?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
30
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(34 citation statements)
references
References 66 publications
4
30
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The topographical distribution of this effect is consistent with an increased N200, considered as reflecting orthographic processing in the visual domain (Holcomb & Grainger, 2006) and classically interpreted as a mismatch detector (see discussion about lexical prediction effects in Brother et al, 2015; see also Federmeier et al, 2005;Kim & Lai, 2012). The oscillatory evidence (involving the low beta-band channel, as in Bastos et al, 2015;Michalareas et al, 2016; see also Molinaro et al, 2016) for this transparent condition further supports our observation of a a prediction effect involving visual word form representations. In our view, the increased beta power for the unexpected determiner likely reflects an on-line update of the predicted representation: since the determiner is not genderconsistent with the predicted noun, the system inhibits such initial prediction and activates other possible (less predicted) lexical candidates.…”
Section: Early Prediction Effect For Basque Nativessupporting
confidence: 88%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The topographical distribution of this effect is consistent with an increased N200, considered as reflecting orthographic processing in the visual domain (Holcomb & Grainger, 2006) and classically interpreted as a mismatch detector (see discussion about lexical prediction effects in Brother et al, 2015; see also Federmeier et al, 2005;Kim & Lai, 2012). The oscillatory evidence (involving the low beta-band channel, as in Bastos et al, 2015;Michalareas et al, 2016; see also Molinaro et al, 2016) for this transparent condition further supports our observation of a a prediction effect involving visual word form representations. In our view, the increased beta power for the unexpected determiner likely reflects an on-line update of the predicted representation: since the determiner is not genderconsistent with the predicted noun, the system inhibits such initial prediction and activates other possible (less predicted) lexical candidates.…”
Section: Early Prediction Effect For Basque Nativessupporting
confidence: 88%
“…They reported that the beta band activity was associated with feedback influences from higher processing regions to primary visual regions during pre-stimulus visual processing. Similar proposals have been advanced even in the sentence comprehension domain (Lewis & Bastiaansen, 2015;Molinaro et al, 2016). Consequently, we considered it relevant to estimate the beta band components time-locked to the target (unexpected vs. expected) determiner to quantify the strength of the prediction in our experimental design across groups.…”
Section: The Present Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In contrast, after picture presentation, the processing hierarchy could be rather different. In a language task, upon seeing a picture, the cognitive system directly activates a conceptual representation that can be mapped onto a lexical representation (after 200 ms poststimulus, affecting the P200 component; Strijkers & Costa, 2011)-similar to what happens in picture naming studies (see Dell & Chang, 2014;Molinaro, Monsalve, & Lizarazu, 2016;Pickering & Garrod, 2013). If we follow the parallel with the word production literature, the lexical representation (often defined as lemma) could be potentially mapped onto a sublexical one, that is, a sequence of speech sounds (after around 300 ms; Indefrey & Levelt, 2004;Strijkers & Costa, 2016).…”
Section: The Present Studymentioning
confidence: 92%
“…Top‐down predictions would thus result from the inner pre‐play of speech (cf. Perrone‐Bertolotti et al ., )—that is, the listener would anticipate the speaker's upcoming words based on their own speech production experiences or habits (Molinaro et al ., ). In line with this view, a body of studies has observed beta‐band power during language production to be modulated by the degree of lexical‐semantic association between the prior word sequences and to‐be‐produced words (Findlay et al ., ; Piai et al ., , ).…”
Section: The Delta Band: Chunking Of Words Into Syntactic Phrasesmentioning
confidence: 97%