Electrophysiological correlates of concept type shifts.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
19
08
2018
accepted:
06
02
2019
entrez:
6
3
2019
pubmed:
6
3
2019
medline:
26
11
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
A recent semantic theory of nominal concepts by Löbner [1] posits that-due to their inherent uniqueness and relationality properties-noun concepts can be classified into four concept types (CTs): sortal, individual, relational, functional. For sortal nouns the default determination is indefinite (a stone), for individual nouns it is definite (the sun), for relational and functional nouns it is possessive (his ear, his father). Incongruent determination leads to a concept type shift: his father (functional concept: unique, relational)-a father (sortal concept: non-unique, non-relational). Behavioral studies on CT shifts have demonstrated a CT congruence effect, with congruent determiners triggering faster lexical decision times on the subsequent noun than incongruent ones [2, 3]. The present ERP study investigated electrophysiological correlates of congruent and incongruent determination in German noun phrases, and specifically, whether the CT congruence effect could be indexed by such classic ERP components as N400, LAN or P600. If incongruent determination affects the lexical retrieval or semantic integration of the noun, it should be reflected in the amplitude of the N400 component. If, however, CT congruence is processed by the same neuronal mechanisms that underlie morphosyntactic processing, incongruent determination should trigger LAN or/and P600. These predictions were tested in two ERP studies. In Experiment 1, participants just listened to noun phrases. In Experiment 2, they performed a wellformedness judgment task. The processing of (in)congruent CTs (his sun vs. the sun) was compared to the processing of morphosyntactic and semantic violations in control conditions. Whereas the control conditions elicited classic electrophysiological violation responses (N400, LAN, & P600), CT-incongruences did not. Instead they showed novel concept-type specific response patterns. The absence of the classic ERP components suggests that CT-incongruent determination is not perceived as a violation of the semantic or morphosyntactic structure of the noun phrase.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30835763
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0212624
pii: PONE-D-18-24418
pmc: PMC6400391
doi:
Types de publication
Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0212624Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Cortex. 2019 Jul;116:4-44
pubmed: 30268324
Cognition. 2017 Apr;161:46-59
pubmed: 28109781
Neuropsychologia. 2000;38(11):1531-49
pubmed: 10906378
Neuroreport. 2004 May 19;15(7):1209-13
pubmed: 15129176
Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol Suppl. 1987;39:325-30
pubmed: 3477442
J Neurosci. 2011 Feb 23;31(8):2801-14
pubmed: 21414902
J Psycholinguist Res. 2000 Jan;29(1):53-68
pubmed: 10723710
J Cogn Neurosci. 1994 Summer;6(3):256-66
pubmed: 23964975
J Cogn Neurosci. 1997 May;9(3):318-29
pubmed: 23965010
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1996 Sep;22(5):1219-48
pubmed: 8805821
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2008 Dec;9(12):920-33
pubmed: 19020511
Front Psychol. 2016 Aug 30;7:1276
pubmed: 27625617
Percept Psychophys. 2004 Aug;66(6):1018-32
pubmed: 15675648
Brain Lang. 1990 Aug;39(2):302-18
pubmed: 2224497
Brain Res. 2012 May 25;1456:49-63
pubmed: 22520436
Brain Res. 2011 May 25;1392:62-79
pubmed: 21466794
Psychophysiology. 2002 Mar;39(2):133-46
pubmed: 12212662
Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 1999 Oct 25;8(3):373-92
pubmed: 10556614
Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 1997 Jul;6(1):37-52
pubmed: 9395848
Int J Neurosci. 1991 Mar;57(1-2):111-22
pubmed: 1938150
Clin Neurosci. 1997;4(2):64-72
pubmed: 9059755
Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 1993 Oct;1(3):183-92
pubmed: 8257874
Brain Lang. 2008 Aug;106(2):132-43
pubmed: 18561993
J Cogn Neurosci. 2003 Aug 15;15(6):883-99
pubmed: 14511541
Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1993 May-Jun;88(3):188-209
pubmed: 7684968
J Cogn Neurosci. 2000 Jul;12(4):556-68
pubmed: 10936910
Brain Res. 2007 May 18;1146:210-8
pubmed: 17433893
Neuropsychologia. 2010 May;48(6):1551-62
pubmed: 20138898
Brain Lang. 2003 Apr;85(1):1-36
pubmed: 12681346
J Cogn Neurosci. 2008 Apr;20(4):580-91
pubmed: 18052777
Mem Cognit. 1990 Jul;18(4):367-79
pubmed: 2381316
Annu Rev Neurosci. 2014;37:347-62
pubmed: 24905595
Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1988 Mar;69(3):218-33
pubmed: 2450003
Brain Res. 2007 May 18;1146:23-49
pubmed: 17400197
Neuropsychologia. 2012 Apr;50(5):655-65
pubmed: 22245013
Int J Psychophysiol. 2012 Feb;83(2):176-90
pubmed: 22019481
Brain Lang. 1987 Jan;30(1):116-29
pubmed: 3815050
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2007 May 29;362(1481):801-11
pubmed: 17412680
J Cogn Neurosci. 1993 Summer;5(3):345-62
pubmed: 23972222
J Cogn Neurosci. 2007 Nov;19(11):1905-21
pubmed: 17958491
Brain Res. 2008 Sep 4;1228:161-76
pubmed: 18619420
Cognition. 2014 Nov;133(2):371-84
pubmed: 25128795
Neuropsychologia. 2000;38(11):1518-30
pubmed: 10906377
J Cogn Neurosci. 2005 Jan;17(1):137-53
pubmed: 15701245
Cortex. 2011 Sep;47(8):908-30
pubmed: 21458791
J Cogn Neurosci. 2010 Dec;22(12):2685-701
pubmed: 19702471
Brain Lang. 1987 Jul;31(2):308-27
pubmed: 3620905
Biol Psychol. 1980 Sep;11(2):99-116
pubmed: 7272388
Science. 1980 Jan 11;207(4427):203-5
pubmed: 7350657
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2005 May;31(3):443-67
pubmed: 15910130
J Psycholinguist Res. 2001 May;30(3):237-50
pubmed: 11523273
PLoS One. 2014 Mar 10;9(3):e91226
pubmed: 24614675
J Mem Lang. 2010 Aug 1;63(2):158-179
pubmed: 20640044
Brain Res. 2006 Mar 10;1077(1):144-52
pubmed: 16487499
Psychon Bull Rev. 2006 Feb;13(1):53-9
pubmed: 16724768
Neuroimage. 2015 Nov 15;122:65-72
pubmed: 26244274
Cognition. 2001 Jan;78(1):B17-25
pubmed: 11062325
Brain Lang. 2012 Feb;120(2):108-26
pubmed: 21377198
Brain Lang. 1992 Aug;43(2):230-9
pubmed: 1393521
Neuropsychologia. 2009 Jul;47(8-9):1799-815
pubmed: 19428412
Annu Rev Psychol. 2011;62:621-47
pubmed: 20809790
Brain Lang. 2009 Mar;108(3):184-90
pubmed: 18678402
Brain Cogn. 1998 Apr;36(3):355-76
pubmed: 9647684
Brain Lang. 1999 Nov;70(2):273-86
pubmed: 10550231
Trends Cogn Sci. 2002 Feb 1;6(2):78-84
pubmed: 15866191
Neuropsychologia. 1971 Mar;9(1):97-113
pubmed: 5146491
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1984;425:236-41
pubmed: 6588837
J Cogn Neurosci. 2010 Jan;22(1):67-82
pubmed: 19199401
Neuropsychologia. 2014 Apr;56:289-301
pubmed: 24530237
J Cogn Neurosci. 1999 Nov;11(6):657-71
pubmed: 10601747
PLoS One. 2007 Nov 14;2(11):e1175
pubmed: 18000546
Psychophysiology. 1997 Nov;34(6):660-76
pubmed: 9401421
Neuroreport. 2010 Oct 6;21(14):938-42
pubmed: 20717062
J Cogn Neurosci. 1991 Spring;3(2):131-50
pubmed: 23972089
Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2001 Mar;11(1):47-58
pubmed: 11240111
Mem Cognit. 1983 Sep;11(5):539-50
pubmed: 6656613
Psychophysiology. 1993 Mar;30(2):161-9
pubmed: 8434079
Nature. 1984 Jan 12-18;307(5947):161-3
pubmed: 6690995
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1989 Jan;15(1):50-60
pubmed: 2522141
Brain Res. 2012 Mar 29;1446:91-108
pubmed: 22341872
Brain Lang. 2005 Apr;93(1):1-9
pubmed: 15766763
J Cogn Neurosci. 2001 Oct 1;13(7):967-85
pubmed: 11595099
J Mem Lang. 2015 Aug 1;83:79-96
pubmed: 26005285
Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 Dec 1;4(12):463-470
pubmed: 11115760
Front Psychol. 2013 Dec 30;4:1004
pubmed: 24416027
J Cogn Neurosci. 2010 Sep;22(9):2131-40
pubmed: 19583469
Neuroimage. 2012 Sep;62(3):1987-98
pubmed: 22634860
Brain Lang. 1988 Sep;35(1):66-85
pubmed: 3179703
Brain Res. 2011 Sep 2;1410:64-76
pubmed: 21798519
Psychophysiology. 2011 Oct;48(10):1361-71
pubmed: 21517901