Neural and behavioural effects of typicality, denotation and composition in an adjective–noun combination task

Fritz, Isabella; Baggio, Giosué

doi:10.1080/23273798.2021.2004176

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 76 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Data from EEG and MEG language studies are traditionally analyzed focusing on event-related potentials (ERPs; Luck, 2005) or neural oscillations (Buzsáki & Draguhn, 2004). On the one hand, several ERP components (e.g., ELAN, LAN, N400, P600) have been linked to specific stages of linguistic processing (e.g., phrasal building, morphosyntactic analysis, semantic composition, integration; see (Bornkessel-Schlesewsky & Schlesewsky, 2008;Brouwer et al, 2017;Friederici, 2011;Fritz & Baggio, 2022;Hernández et al, 2022;Maran, Friederici, et al, 2022;Zaccarella & Friederici, 2015b). On the other, distinct neural oscillations seem to subserve the multiscale property of language, from the processing of phonetic and syllabic units to phrases, and ultimately to more complex aspects of comprehension (e.g., Benítez-Burraco & Murphy, 2019;Giraud & Poeppel, 2012;A.…”

Section: Am4: the Analytic Approach Is Capable Of Testing The Hypothe...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cleaning up the Brickyard: How Theory and Methodology Shape Experiments in Cognitive Neuroscience of Language

van der Burght,

Friederici,

Maran

et al. 2023

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The capacity for language is a defining property of our species, yet despite decades of research, evidence on its neural basis is still mixed and a generalized consensus is difficult to achieve. We suggest that this is partly caused by researchers defining “language” in different ways, with focus on a wide range of phenomena, properties, and levels of investigation. Accordingly, there is very little agreement among cognitive neuroscientists of language on the operationalization of fundamental concepts to be investigated in neuroscientific experiments. Here, we review chains of derivation in the cognitive neuroscience of language, focusing on how the hypothesis under consideration is defined by a combination of theoretical and methodological assumptions. We first attempt to disentangle the complex relationship between linguistics, psychology, and neuroscience in the field. Next, we focus on how conclusions that can be drawn from any experiment are inherently constrained by auxiliary assumptions, both theoretical and methodological, on which the validity of conclusions drawn rests. These issues are discussed in the context of classical experimental manipulations as well as study designs that employ novel approaches such as naturalistic stimuli and computational modeling. We conclude by proposing that a highly interdisciplinary field such as the cognitive neuroscience of language requires researchers to form explicit statements concerning the theoretical definitions, methodological choices, and other constraining factors involved in their work.

show abstract

Section: Am4: the Analytic Approach Is Capable Of Testing The Hypothe...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cleaning up the Brickyard: How Theory and Methodology Shape Experiments in Cognitive Neuroscience of Language

van der Burght,

Friederici,

Maran

et al. 2023

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The interpretation of the P600 as an index of integration effort is, however, not limited to role‐reversal manipulations but naturally extends to those semantic P600 findings induced not only by semantic and pragmatic factors (Burkhardt, 2006, 2007; Cohn & Kutas, 2015; Delogu et al, 2019; Dimitrova et al, 2012; Hoeks et al, 2013; Regel et al, 2010; Schumacher, 2011; Spotorno et al, 2013; Xu & Zhou, 2016) but also those induced by manipulations of syntax (Gouvea et al, 2010; see Brouwer et al, 2012; Delogu et al, 2019 for discussion) and syntax‐driven semantic composition (Fritz & Baggio, 2020, 2022). Importantly, on the RI account, the amplitude of the P600 should not be a binary response to violating stimuli but should rather be sensitive to integration effort on a continuous scale (Brouwer et al, 2012), reflecting comprehension‐centric surprisal (Brouwer et al, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%