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

@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 -