Semantic P600—but not N400—effects index crosslinguistic variability in speakers’ expectancies for expression of motion

Emerson, Samantha N.; Conway, Christopher M.; Özçalışkan, Şeyda

doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2020.107638

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It used multiple channel selection of ERP plotting format in specified time windows. Reading was explored in a pre-lexical stage in the time window 160-260 ms [21,40,56,84,87], a lexical stage in a time window 450-700 ms [40,56,64,90,117], and a post-lexical stage in time window 750-900 ms [53,91,94,116]. Naming processing was explored in pre-lexical stage 150-200 ms [54,63,96,97], lexical stage 280-440 ms [59,71,72,99,100,117] and post-lexical stage 900-1000 ms [63,83,102,103,116].…”

Section: Erp Acquisition and Pre-processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The earliest signs of differences between PDs and healthy control subjects (HCs) during word reading were seen in the pre-lexical stage, approximately around 150 ms to 250 ms poststimulus onset [21,84], usually indexed by N170 ERP component [21,40,56,[84][85][86][87][88][89], in lexical stage around 250 to 600 ms and indexed by N320 [40,56] component and N400 [64,[90][91][92] activated by repetition tasks or grapheme to phoneme conversion mechanisms. Differences in the post-lexical stage between PDs and HCs were seen approximately after the 500 ms to 1000 ms post-stimulus onset indexed by P600 ERP component [53,91,93,94] or late positive complex (LPC) [91,95] engaged during the repetition of words/pseudo words and articulatory processes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Overt Word Reading and Visual Object Naming in Adults with Dyslexia: Electroencephalography Study in Transparent Orthography

Perkušić Čović,

Vujović,

Šoda

et al. 2024

Bioengineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study aimed to investigate overt reading and naming processes in adult people with dyslexia (PDs) in shallow (transparent) language orthography. The results of adult PDs are compared with adult healthy controls HCs. Comparisons are made in three phases: pre-lexical (150–260 ms), lexical (280–700 ms), and post-lexical stage of processing (750–1000 ms) time window. Twelve PDs and HCs performed overt reading and naming tasks under EEG recording. The word reading and naming task consisted of sparse neighborhoods with closed phonemic onset (words/objects sharing the same onset). For the analysis of the mean ERP amplitude for pre-lexical, lexical, and post-lexical time window, a mixed design ANOVA was performed with the right (F4, FC2, FC6, C4, T8, CP2, CP6, P4) and left (F3, FC5, FC1, T7, C3, CP5, CP1, P7, P3) electrode sites, within-subject factors and group (PD vs. HC) as between-subject factor. Behavioral response latency results revealed significantly prolonged reading latency between HCs and PDs, while no difference was detected in naming response latency. ERP differences were found between PDs and HCs in the right hemisphere’s pre-lexical time window (160–200 ms) for word reading aloud. For visual object naming aloud, ERP differences were found between PDs and HCs in the right hemisphere’s post-lexical time window (900–1000 ms). The present study demonstrated different distributions of the electric field at the scalp in specific time windows between two groups in the right hemisphere in both word reading and visual object naming aloud, suggesting alternative processing strategies in adult PDs. These results indirectly support the view that adult PDs in shallow language orthography probably rely on the grapho-phonological route during overt word reading and have difficulties with phoneme and word retrieval during overt visual object naming in adulthood.

show abstract

Section: Erp Acquisition and Pre-processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overt Word Reading and Visual Object Naming in Adults with Dyslexia: Electroencephalography Study in Transparent Orthography

Perkušić Čović,

Vujović,

Šoda

et al. 2024

Bioengineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given the extra processing load such constructions impose on production, V-language speakers are typically more likely to exclude manner from their descriptions, focusing only on path of motion (Cardini, 2010;Choi & Bowerman, 1991;Özçalışkan, 2015;Özçalışkan & Slobin, 1999Özçalışkan & Slobin, , 2003Özçalışkan et al, 2016a, 2016b. Such patterns of expression are pervasive and even influence speakers' expectations for how motion will be processed at the neural level (Emerson, Conway, & Özçalışkan, 2020).…”

Section: Packaging and Ordering Of Semantic Elements In Speechmentioning

confidence: 99%

When Gestures Do or Do Not Follow Language‐Specific Patterns of Motion Expression in Speech: Evidence from Chinese, English and Turkish

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Speakers of different languages (e.g., English vs. Turkish) show a binary split in how they package and order components of a motion event in speech and co‐speech gesture but not in silent gesture. In this study, we focused on Mandarin Chinese, a language that does not follow the binary split in its expression of motion in speech, and asked whether adult Chinese speakers would follow the language‐specific speech patterns in co‐speech but not silent gesture, thus showing a pattern akin to Turkish and English adult speakers in their description of animated motion events. Our results provided evidence for this pattern, with Chinese—as well as English and Turkish—speakers following language‐specific patterns in speech and co‐speech gesture but not in silent gesture. Our results provide support for the “thinking‐for‐speaking” account, namely that language influences thought only during online, but not offline, production of speech.

show abstract

Learning novel words for motion by speakers of structurally different languages

Tütüncü,

Emerson,

Paul

et al. 2024

Lang. cogn.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Speakers of different languages follow a three-way split in how they express motion events in speech—with a greater emphasis on manner in satellite-framed languages (English), path in verb-framed languages (Turkish), and comparable expression of manner and path in equipollently-framed languages (Chinese). According to the thinking-for-speaking account, these language-specific patterns can affect speakers’ representation of motion events but only when verbalizing the event. In this study, we asked whether language might influence learning novel words, particularly when the words were accompanied with gestures. We examined effects of language type (equipollent-framed: Chinese, satellite-framed: English, verb-framed: Turkish) and modality (speech-only, gesture+speech) on learning pseudowords for motion (manner, path). Our results showed that speakers of all three languages learned pseudowords for manner and path but with lower accuracy scores and slower rates of learning by Chinese speakers. Regardless of the language they spoke, participants learned manner words more accurately than path words, but with no added benefits of instruction with gesture+speech over speech-only. Taken together, our study extends the lack of language effect on nonverbal representation of events when not speaking to the domain of novel word learning across structurally different languages.

show abstract

Semantic P600—but not N400—effects index crosslinguistic variability in speakers’ expectancies for expression of motion

Cited by 5 publications

References 47 publications

Overt Word Reading and Visual Object Naming in Adults with Dyslexia: Electroencephalography Study in Transparent Orthography

Overt Word Reading and Visual Object Naming in Adults with Dyslexia: Electroencephalography Study in Transparent Orthography

When Gestures Do or Do Not Follow Language‐Specific Patterns of Motion Expression in Speech: Evidence from Chinese, English and Turkish

Learning novel words for motion by speakers of structurally different languages

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About