Before the N400

Effects of lexical-semantic violations in visual cortex

Suzanne Dikker, Liina Pylkkanen

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    There exists an increasing body of research demonstrating that language processing is aided by context-based predictions. Recent findings suggest that the brain generates estimates about the likely physical appearance of upcoming words based on syntactic predictions: words that do not physically look like the expected syntactic category show increased amplitudes in the visual M100 component, the first salient MEG response to visual stimulation. This research asks whether violations of predictions based on lexical-semantic information might similarly generate early visual effects. In a picture-noun matching task, we found early visual effects for words that did not accurately describe the preceding pictures. These results demonstrate that, just like syntactic predictions, lexical-semantic predictions can affect early visual processing around ~100. ms, suggesting that the M100 response is not exclusively tuned to recognizing visual features relevant to syntactic category analysis. Rather, the brain might generate predictions about upcoming visual input whenever it can. However, visual effects of lexical-semantic violations only occurred when a single lexical item could be predicted. We argue that this may be due to the fact that in natural language processing, there is typically no straightforward mapping between lexical-semantic fields (e.g., flowers) and visual or auditory forms (e.g., tulip, rose, magnolia). For syntactic categories, in contrast, certain form features do reliably correlate with category membership. This difference may, in part, explain why certain syntactic effects typically occur much earlier than lexical-semantic effects.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)23-28
    Number of pages6
    JournalBrain and Language
    Volume118
    Issue number1-2
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Jul 2011

    Fingerprint

    Visual Cortex
    Semantics
    semantics
    Tulipa
    Magnolia
    Natural Language Processing
    brain
    Photic Stimulation
    Brain
    Research
    language
    Language
    Cortex
    Lexical Semantics
    Prediction
    Violations
    Syntax
    Syntactic Category
    Visual Effects

    Keywords

    • Language processing
    • Lexical priming
    • Lexical-semantic processing
    • M100
    • Magnetoencephalography
    • N400
    • Prediction
    • Top-down processing
    • Visual cortex

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Linguistics and Language
    • Speech and Hearing
    • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
    • Cognitive Neuroscience

    Cite this

    Before the N400 : Effects of lexical-semantic violations in visual cortex. / Dikker, Suzanne; Pylkkanen, Liina.

    In: Brain and Language, Vol. 118, No. 1-2, 07.2011, p. 23-28.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Dikker, Suzanne ; Pylkkanen, Liina. / Before the N400 : Effects of lexical-semantic violations in visual cortex. In: Brain and Language. 2011 ; Vol. 118, No. 1-2. pp. 23-28.
    @article{c34d2eb6e5a74fd3852bc6e1ae5991d9,
    title = "Before the N400: Effects of lexical-semantic violations in visual cortex",
    abstract = "There exists an increasing body of research demonstrating that language processing is aided by context-based predictions. Recent findings suggest that the brain generates estimates about the likely physical appearance of upcoming words based on syntactic predictions: words that do not physically look like the expected syntactic category show increased amplitudes in the visual M100 component, the first salient MEG response to visual stimulation. This research asks whether violations of predictions based on lexical-semantic information might similarly generate early visual effects. In a picture-noun matching task, we found early visual effects for words that did not accurately describe the preceding pictures. These results demonstrate that, just like syntactic predictions, lexical-semantic predictions can affect early visual processing around ~100. ms, suggesting that the M100 response is not exclusively tuned to recognizing visual features relevant to syntactic category analysis. Rather, the brain might generate predictions about upcoming visual input whenever it can. However, visual effects of lexical-semantic violations only occurred when a single lexical item could be predicted. We argue that this may be due to the fact that in natural language processing, there is typically no straightforward mapping between lexical-semantic fields (e.g., flowers) and visual or auditory forms (e.g., tulip, rose, magnolia). For syntactic categories, in contrast, certain form features do reliably correlate with category membership. This difference may, in part, explain why certain syntactic effects typically occur much earlier than lexical-semantic effects.",
    keywords = "Language processing, Lexical priming, Lexical-semantic processing, M100, Magnetoencephalography, N400, Prediction, Top-down processing, Visual cortex",
    author = "Suzanne Dikker and Liina Pylkkanen",
    year = "2011",
    month = "7",
    doi = "10.1016/j.bandl.2011.02.006",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "118",
    pages = "23--28",
    journal = "Brain and Language",
    issn = "0093-934X",
    publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",
    number = "1-2",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Before the N400

    T2 - Effects of lexical-semantic violations in visual cortex

    AU - Dikker, Suzanne

    AU - Pylkkanen, Liina

    PY - 2011/7

    Y1 - 2011/7

    N2 - There exists an increasing body of research demonstrating that language processing is aided by context-based predictions. Recent findings suggest that the brain generates estimates about the likely physical appearance of upcoming words based on syntactic predictions: words that do not physically look like the expected syntactic category show increased amplitudes in the visual M100 component, the first salient MEG response to visual stimulation. This research asks whether violations of predictions based on lexical-semantic information might similarly generate early visual effects. In a picture-noun matching task, we found early visual effects for words that did not accurately describe the preceding pictures. These results demonstrate that, just like syntactic predictions, lexical-semantic predictions can affect early visual processing around ~100. ms, suggesting that the M100 response is not exclusively tuned to recognizing visual features relevant to syntactic category analysis. Rather, the brain might generate predictions about upcoming visual input whenever it can. However, visual effects of lexical-semantic violations only occurred when a single lexical item could be predicted. We argue that this may be due to the fact that in natural language processing, there is typically no straightforward mapping between lexical-semantic fields (e.g., flowers) and visual or auditory forms (e.g., tulip, rose, magnolia). For syntactic categories, in contrast, certain form features do reliably correlate with category membership. This difference may, in part, explain why certain syntactic effects typically occur much earlier than lexical-semantic effects.

    AB - There exists an increasing body of research demonstrating that language processing is aided by context-based predictions. Recent findings suggest that the brain generates estimates about the likely physical appearance of upcoming words based on syntactic predictions: words that do not physically look like the expected syntactic category show increased amplitudes in the visual M100 component, the first salient MEG response to visual stimulation. This research asks whether violations of predictions based on lexical-semantic information might similarly generate early visual effects. In a picture-noun matching task, we found early visual effects for words that did not accurately describe the preceding pictures. These results demonstrate that, just like syntactic predictions, lexical-semantic predictions can affect early visual processing around ~100. ms, suggesting that the M100 response is not exclusively tuned to recognizing visual features relevant to syntactic category analysis. Rather, the brain might generate predictions about upcoming visual input whenever it can. However, visual effects of lexical-semantic violations only occurred when a single lexical item could be predicted. We argue that this may be due to the fact that in natural language processing, there is typically no straightforward mapping between lexical-semantic fields (e.g., flowers) and visual or auditory forms (e.g., tulip, rose, magnolia). For syntactic categories, in contrast, certain form features do reliably correlate with category membership. This difference may, in part, explain why certain syntactic effects typically occur much earlier than lexical-semantic effects.

    KW - Language processing

    KW - Lexical priming

    KW - Lexical-semantic processing

    KW - M100

    KW - Magnetoencephalography

    KW - N400

    KW - Prediction

    KW - Top-down processing

    KW - Visual cortex

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79957842540&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79957842540&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1016/j.bandl.2011.02.006

    DO - 10.1016/j.bandl.2011.02.006

    M3 - Article

    VL - 118

    SP - 23

    EP - 28

    JO - Brain and Language

    JF - Brain and Language

    SN - 0093-934X

    IS - 1-2

    ER -