Semantic processing of actions at 9months is linked to language proficiency at 9 and 18months

Abstract

The current study uses event-related potential methodologies to investigate how social-cognitive processes in preverbal infants relate to language performance. We assessed 9-month-olds' understanding of the semantic structure of actions via an N400 event-related potential (ERP) response to action sequences that contained expected and unexpected outcomes. At 9 and 18months of age, infants' language abilities were measured using the Swedish Early Communicative Development Inventory (SECDI). Here we show that 9-month-olds' understanding of the semantic structure of actions, evidenced in an N400 ERP response to action sequences with unexpected outcomes, is related to language comprehension scores at 9months and is related to language production scores at 18months of age. Infants who showed a selective N400 response to unexpected action outcomes are those who are classed as above mean in their language proficiency. The results provide evidence that language performance is related to the ability to detect and interpret human actions at 9months of age. This study suggests that some basic cognitive mechanisms are involved in the processing of sequential events that are shared between two conceptually different cognitive domains and that pre-linguistic social understanding skills and language proficiency are linked to one another.

Syntactical regularities of action sequences in the infant brain: when structure matters

“…However, this widespread activity pattern stands in contrast to adult literature on the topic showing a very clear anterior biphasic activity pattern (Maffongelli et al, 2015). It is important to note that compared to other infant studies (e.g., Kaduk et al, 2016;Monroy et al, 2017), the present study included a relatively high number of trials in the analysis. We emphasize, however, that the present data need to be considered with caution because the sample size of the present study, although comparable to previous research testing infant samples at a similar age range (e.g., Monroy et al, 2017), is relatively small.…”

“…As a consequence, the reported effects are small. It is important to note that compared to other infant studies (e.g., Kaduk et al, 2016;Monroy et al, 2017), the present study included a relatively high number of trials in the analysis.…”

“…One might, however, argue that ERP components in infants are often temporally shifted compared to adults, that is, components are observed 200-300 ms later than in adults (de Haan, 2013;Kaduk et al, 2016;Oberecker, Friedrich, & Friederici, 2005;Thierry, 2004). One possibility, based on the standard interpretation of a P600 effect, would be that infants performed a reanalysis of the erroneous sequence they had just observed.…”

“…Importantly, the selected posterior region of interest was based on prior literature investigating the action N400 (Kaduk et al, 2016;Reid et al, 2009).With this analysis on an extended model, we want to show that before focusing on frontal regions only (where the effects are reported in Maffongelli et al, 2015), we also checked for possible differences distributed over the scalp. Importantly, the selected posterior region of interest was based on prior literature investigating the action N400 (Kaduk et al, 2016;Reid et al, 2009).With this analysis on an extended model, we want to show that before focusing on frontal regions only (where the effects are reported in Maffongelli et al, 2015), we also checked for possible differences distributed over the scalp.…”

“…Accordingly, focusing on children who do not yet produce verbs allows us to investigate the characteristics of action processing before being influenced by the productive language, which leads to some reorganization of conceptual knowledge (Göksun, Hirsh-Pasek, & Michnick Golinkoff, 2010). Around the end of the first half year of life, infants start to react to semantic violations of an action in a similar way as adults do (Kaduk et al, 2016;Reid et al, 2007;Reid & Striano, 2008). The main question that guided this research was how infants, who are not able to mentally verbalize actions, process violations of action syntax.…”