The neural representation of plural discourse entities

Boiteau, Timothy W.; Bowers, E. A.; Nair, Veena A.; Almor, Amit

doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2014.08.003

Cited by 15 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This conclusion is compatible with Boiteau et al’s (2014) fMRI study which revealed greater activation in parietal regions associated with the processing of references to conjoined antecedents.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Another important type of evidence is provided by fMRI studies that can further help identify the brain regions that participate in these processes. Most relevant to the current study, Boiteau et al (2014) previously showed that, in multi-sentence texts, plural reference to a conjoined discourse entity leads to greater bilateral parietal activity relative to single reference to a single discourse entity. An earlier study from our lab (Almor et al, 2007), looking more specifically at the RNP (inter-sententially), also found greater involvement of parietal regions bilaterally in repeated vs. pronoun conditions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 54%

“…The fact that, for pronouns, the scalp distribution of the N400 effects was similar in sentences and discourse shows that while both pronouns and repeated name references were more predictable in the conjoined than in the singular conditions, the mechanisms leading to these predictions were not identical for the two forms. At the same time, it is worth noting that fMRI studies of the RNP, though generally reporting bilateral parietal activity, also found stronger effects in the left angular gyrus (Boiteau et al, 2014) and left temporal lobe (Almor et al, 2007). However, these studies only looked at discourse effects and not intra-sentential reference, leaving this an open question for future research.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Broadly interpreted, this result likely reflects an increased working memory load in the plural than in the single conditions, possibly due to the availability of multiple potential antecedents (Nieuwland, 2014). A likely reason for this is offered by previous research on plural references, which has shown that referring to a single entity in a conjoined phrase can lead to processing difficulty, and that in general, a conjoined reference is costlier to maintain in the discourse model (e.g., Albrecht & Clifton, 1998; Boiteau et al, 2014; Moxey, Sanford, Sturt, & Morrow, 2004; Patson & Warren, 2011). The differences we observed in frontal negativity suggest that rather than merely manipulating the salience of the antecedent, the single versus conjoined noun phrase manipulation results in a different number of potential antecedents in the different conditions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This could reflect the availability of multiple possible antecedents. Indeed, previous research has shown that conjoined noun phrases can lead to the formation of multiple referents in the discourse representation corresponding to the representations of each of the conjoined NPs, the plural conjoined NP, or a complex reference object, in which both the individual and conjoined referents are represented (e.g., Albrecht & Clifton, 1998; Boiteau et al, 2014; Moxey, Sanford, Sturt, & Morrow, 2004; Patson & Warren, 2011). …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The N400 in processing repeated name and pronoun anaphors in sentences and discourse

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We report two EEG/ERP experiments that examined processing of repeated name (e.g., Bill; Experiment 1) and pronoun (e.g., he; Experiment 2) subject anaphors to single antecedents (e.g., Bill) and to antecedents embedded in a conjunction (e.g., Bill and Mary) within sentences and discourses. Experiment 1 replicated previous reports of repeated references to single antecedents eliciting greater N400 negativity than repeated references to conjoined antecedents within sentences, and extended these results to cross-sentence (discourse) references. Experiment 2 found that pronouns also elicited greater N400 negativity following single than conjoined antecedents. In both experiments, references to conjoined antecedents elicited greater frontal negativity than references to single antecedents in both sentences and discourse. Our results indicate that, in processing subject anaphors, the N400 is an index of reference predictability rather than a marker of the fit between antecedent salience and reference form, and that frontal negativity marks referential ambiguity elicited by conjoined phrases.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 54%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The N400 in processing repeated name and pronoun anaphors in sentences and discourse

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Bilateral parietal contributions to spatial language

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is commonly held that language is largely lateralized to the left hemisphere in most individuals, whereas spatial processing is associated with right hemisphere regions. In recent years, a number of neuroimaging studies have yielded conflicting results regarding the role of language and spatial processing areas in processing language about space (e.g., Carpenter, Just, Keller, Eddy & Thulborn, 1999; Damasio et al., 2001). In the present study, we used sparse scanning event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to investigate the neural correlates of spatial language, that is; language used to communicate the spatial relationship of one object to another. During scanning, participants listened to sentences about object relationships that were either spatial or non-spatial in nature (color or size relationships). Sentences describing spatial relationships elicited more activation in the superior parietal lobule and precuneus bilaterally in comparison to sentences describing size or color relationships. Activation of the precuneus suggests that spatial sentences elicit spatial-mental imagery, while the activation of the SPL suggests sentences containing spatial language involve integration of two distinct sets of information – linguistic and spatial.

show abstract