Cognitive Neurodynamics

, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp 229–255

Towards dynamical system models of language-related brain potentials

  • Peter beim Graben
  • Sabrina Gerth
  • Shravan Vasishth
Research Article


Event-related brain potentials (ERP) are important neural correlates of cognitive processes. In the domain of language processing, the N400 and P600 reflect lexical-semantic integration and syntactic processing problems, respectively. We suggest an interpretation of these markers in terms of dynamical system theory and present two nonlinear dynamical models for syntactic computations where different processing strategies correspond to functionally different regions in the system’s phase space.


Computational psycholinguistics Language processing Event-related brain potentials Dynamical systems 


  1. Aho AV, Ullman JD (1972) The theory of parsing, translation and compiling, vol i: parsing. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (NJ)Google Scholar
  2. Allefeld C, Frisch S, Schlesewsky M (2004) Detection of early cognitive processing by event-related phase synchronization analysis. NeuroReport 16(1):13–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amari SI (1974) A method of statistical neurodynamics. Kybernetik 14:201–215PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Amari SI (1977) Dynamics of pattern formation in lateral-inhibition type neural fields. Biol Cybernet 27:77–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson JR, Bothell D, Byrne MD, Douglass S, Lebiere C, Qin Y (2004) An integrated theory of the mind. Psychol Rev 111(4):1036–1060PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Atmanspacher H, beim Graben P (2007) Contextual emergence of mental states from neurodynamics. Chaos Complex Lett 2(2/3):151–168Google Scholar
  7. Başar E (1980) EEG-brain dynamics. Relations between EEG and brain evoked potentials. Elsevier/North Holland Biomedical Press, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  8. Başar E (1998) Brain function and oscillations. Vol I: brain oscillations. Principles and approaches. Springer series in synergetics. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  9. Bader M, Meng M (1999) Subject–object ambiguities in German embedded clauses: an across-the-board comparison. J Psycholinguist Res 28(2):121–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beer RD (2000) Dynamical approaches to cognitive science. Trends Cogn Sci 4(3):91–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bornkessel I, Schlesewsky M (2006) The extended argument dependency model: a neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychol Rev 113(4):787–821PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bornkessel I, McElree B, Schlesewsky M, Friederici AD (2004) Multi-dimensional contributions to garden path strength: dissociating phrase structure from case marking. J Mem Lang 51:494–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boston MF, Hale JT, Kliegl R, Patil U, Vasishth S (in press) Parsing costs as predictors of reading difficulty: an evaluation using the Potsdam Sentence Corpus. J Eye Mov Res 1Google Scholar
  14. Chomsky N (1981) Lectures on goverment and binding. ForisGoogle Scholar
  15. Christiansen MH, Chater N (1999) Connectionist natural language processing: the state of the art. Cogn Sci 23(4):417–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Coles MGH, Rugg MD (1995) Event-related brain potentials: an introduction. In: Coles MGH, Rugg MD (eds) Electrophysiology of mind: event-related brain potentials and cognition, chap 1. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Crutchfield JP (1994) The calculi of emergence: computation, dynamics and induction. Physica D 75:11–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cvitanović P, Gunaratne GH, Procaccia I (1988) Topological and metric properties of Hénon-type strange attractors. Phys Rev A 38(3):1503–1520PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dambacher M, Kliegl R, Hofmann M, Jacobs AM (2006) Frequency and predictability effects on event-related potentials during reading. Brain Res 1084:89–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dolan CP, Smolensky P (1989) Tensor product production system: a modular architecture and representation. Connect Sci 1(1):53–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Drenhaus H, beim Graben P, Saddy D, Frisch S (2006) Diagnosis and repair of negative polarity constructions in the light of symbolic resonance analysis. Brain Lang 96(3):255–268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Elman JL (1995) Language as a dynamical system. In: Port, van Gelder (eds), pp 195–223Google Scholar
  23. Erlhagen W, Schöner G (2002) Dynamic field theory of movement preparation. Psychol Rev 109(3):545–572PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fodor JD, Ferreira F (eds) (1998) Reanalysis in sentence processing. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  25. Fodor JD, Frazier L (1980) Is the human sentence parsing mechanism an ATN? Cognition 6:417–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fodor J, Pylyshyn ZW (1988) Connectionism and cognitive architecture: a critical analysis. Cognition 28:3–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Frazier L, Fodor JD (1978) The sausage machine: a new two-stage parsing model. Cognition 6:291–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Freeman WJ (2007) Definitions of state variables and state space for brain-computer interface. Part 1. Multiple hierarchical levels of brain function. Cogn Neurodyn 1:3–14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Friederici AD (1995) The time course of syntactic activation during language processing: a model based on neuropsychological and neurophysiological data. Brain Lang 50:259–281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Friederici AD (1998) Diagnosis and reanalysis: two processing aspects the brain may differentiate. In: Fodor, Ferreira (eds), pp 177–200Google Scholar
  31. Friederici AD (1999) The neurobiology of language comprehension. In: Friederici AD (ed) Language comprehension: a biological perspective, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 265–304Google Scholar
  32. Friederici AD (2002) Towards a neural basis of auditory language processing. Trends Cogn Sci 6:78–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Friederici AD, Pfeifer E, Hahne (1993) Event-related brain potentials during natural speech processing: effects of semantic morphological and syntactic violations. Cogn Brain Res 1:183–192Google Scholar
  34. Friederici AD, Steinhauer K, Mecklinger A, Meyer M (1998) Working memory constraints on syntactic ambiguity resolution as revealed by electrical brain responses. Biol Psychol 47:193–221PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Friederici AD, Mecklinger A, Spencer KM, Steinhauer K, Donchin E (2001) Syntactic parsing preferences and their on-line revisions: a spatio-temporal analysis of event-related brain potentials. Cogn Brain Res 11:305–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Frisch S, beim Graben P (2005) Finding needles in haystacks: symbolic resonance analysis of event-related potentials unveils different processing demands. Cogn Brain Res 24(3):476–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Frisch S, Schlesewsky M (2001) The N400 reflects problems of thematic hierarchizing. NeuroReport 12(15):3391–3394PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Frisch S, Schlesewsky M, Saddy D, Alpermann A (2002) The P600 as an indicator of syntactic ambiguity. Cognition 85:B83–B92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Frisch S, beim Graben P, Schlesewsky M (2004) Parallelizing grammatical functions: P600 and P345 reflect different cost of reanalysis. Int J Bifurcat Chaos 14(2):531–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Frisch S, Kotz SA, Friederici AD (2008) Neural correlates of normal and pathological language processing. In: Ball MJ, Perkins M, Müller N, Howard S (eds) Handbook of clinical linguistics. Blackwell, BostonGoogle Scholar
  41. Garagnani M, Wennekers T, Pulvermüller F (2007) A neuronal model of the language cortex. Neurocomputing 70:1914–1919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. van Gelder T (1998) The dynamical hypothesis in cognitive science. Behav Brain Sci 21(5):615–628PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Gerth S (2006) Parsing mit minimalistischen, gewichteten Grammatiken und deren Zustandsraumdarstellung. Master’s thesis, Universität PotsdamGoogle Scholar
  44. beim Graben P (2001) Estimating and improving the signal-to-noise ratio of time series by symbolic dynamics. Phys Rev E 64:051104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. beim Graben P (2004) Incompatible implementations of physical symbol systems. Mind Matter 2(2):29–51Google Scholar
  46. beim Graben P (2006) Pragmatic information in dynamic semantics. Mind Matter 4(2):169–193Google Scholar
  47. beim Graben P, Frisch S (2004) Is it positive or negative? On determining ERP components. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 51(8):1374–1382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. beim Graben P, Saddy D, Schlesewsky M, Kurths J (2000) Symbolic dynamics of event-related brain potentials. Phys Rev E 62(4):5518–5541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. beim Graben P, Jurish B, Saddy D, Frisch S (2004) Language processing by dynamical systems. Int J Bifurcat Chaos 14(2):599–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. beim Graben P, Frisch S, Fink A, Saddy D, Kurths J (2005) Topographic voltage and coherence mapping of brain potentials by means of the symbolic resonance analysis. Phys Rev E 72:051916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. beim Graben P, Gerth S, Saddy D, Potthast R (2007) Fock space representations in neural field theories. In: Biggs N, Bonnet-Bendhia AS, Chamberlain P, Chandler-Wilde S, Cohen G, Haddar H, Joly P, Langdon S, Lunéville E, Pelloni B, Potherat D, Potthast R (eds) Proc. waves 2007. The 8th international conference on mathematical and numerical aspects of waves. Dept. of Mathematics, University of Reading, Reading, pp 120–122Google Scholar
  52. Grodzinsky Y, Friederici AD (2006) Neuroimaging of syntax and syntactic processing. Curr Opin Neurobiol 16:240–246PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Haag R (1992) Local quantum physics: fields, particles, algebras. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  54. Haegeman L (1994) Introduction to goverment & binding theory, Blackwell textbooks in linguistics, vol 1, 2nd edn. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, 1st edition 1991Google Scholar
  55. Hagoort P (2003) How the brain solves the binding problem for language: a neurocomputational model of syntactic processing. NeuroImage 20:S18–S29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Hagoort P (2005) On Broca, brain, and binding: A new framework. Trends Cogn Sci 9(9):416–423PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Hagoort P, Brown CM, Groothusen J (1993) The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Lang Cogn Process 8:439–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Hale JT (2003) The information conveyed by words in sentences. J Psycholinguist Res 32(2):101–123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Hale JT (2006) Uncertainty about the rest of the sentence. Cogn Sci 30(4)Google Scholar
  60. Hale JT, Smolensky P (2006) Harmonic grammar and harmonic parsers for formal languages. In: Smolensky, Legendre (eds), chap 10, pp 393–415Google Scholar
  61. Hao BL (1989) Elementary symbolic dynamics and chaos in dissipative systems. World Scientific, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  62. Hopcroft JE, Ullman JD (1979) Introduction to automata theory, languages, and computation. Addison–Wesley, Menlo Park, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  63. Huang NE, Shen Z, Long SR, Wu MC, Shih HH, Zheng Q, Yen NC, Tung CC, Liu HH (1998) The empirical mode decomposition and the Hilbert spectrum for nonlinear and non-stationary time series analysis. Proc R Soc Lond A 454:903–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Jirsa VK, Haken H (1996) Field theory of electromagnetic brain activity. Phys Rev Lett 77(5):960–963PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Kaan E, Harris A, Gibson E, Holcomb P (2000) The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Lang Cogn Process 15(2):159–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Kandel ER, Schwartz JH, Jessel TM (eds) (1995) Essentials of neural science and behavior. Appleton & Lange, East Norwalk, ConnecticutGoogle Scholar
  67. Kennel MB, Buhl M (2003) Estimating good discrete partitions from observed data: Symbolic false nearest neighbors. Phys Rev Lett 91(8):084–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Kutas M, Hillyard SA (1980) Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science 207:203–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Kutas M, Hillyard SA (1984) Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature 307:161–163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Kutas M, van Petten CK (1994) Psycholinguistics electrified. Event-related brain potential investigations. In: Gernsbacher MA (ed) Handbook of psycholinguistics. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 83–133Google Scholar
  71. Lewis RL (1998) Reanalysis and limited repair parsing: leaping off the garden path. In: Fodor, Ferreira (eds), pp 247–285Google Scholar
  72. Lewis RL (2000) Computational psycholinguistics. In: Encyclopedia of cognitive science, Macmillan Reference LtdGoogle Scholar
  73. Lewis RL, Vasishth S (2006) An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cogn Sci 29:375–419Google Scholar
  74. Lewis RL, Vasishth S, Van Dyke J (2006) Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends Cogn Sci 10:447–454PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Lind D, Marcus B (1995) An introduction to symbolic dynamics and coding. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (UK), reprint 1999Google Scholar
  76. Makeig S, Westerfield M, Jung TP, Enghoff S, Townsend J, Courchesne E, Sejnowski TJ (2002) Dynamic brain sources of visual evoked responses. Science 295:690–694PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Marcus M (1980) A theory of syntactic recognition for natural language. MIT Press, Cambrigde (MA)Google Scholar
  78. Marwan N, Meinke A (2004) Extended recurrence plot analysis and its application to ERP data. Int J Bifurcat Chaos 14(2):761–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. McElree B (2000) Sentence comprehension is mediated by content-addressable memory structures. J Psycholinguist Res 29(2):111–123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. McElree B, Dosher BA (1993) Serial retrieval processes in the recovery of order information. J Exp Psychol Gen 122(3):291–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Mecklinger A, Schriefers H, Steinhauer K, Friederici AD (1995) Processing relative clauses varying on syntactic and semantic dimensions: an analysis with event-related potentials. J Mem Lang 23:477–494Google Scholar
  82. Michaelis J (2001) Derivational minimalism is mildly context-sensitive. In: Moortgat M (ed) Logical aspects of computational linguistics. Lecture notes in artificial intelligence, vol 2014, Springer, Berlin, pp 179–198Google Scholar
  83. Mizraji E (1989) Context-dependent associations in linear distributed memories. Bull Math Biol 51(2):195–205PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Mizraji E (1992) Vector logics: the matrix-vector representation of logical calculus. Fuzzy Sets Syst 50:179–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Moore C (1990) Unpredictability and undecidability in dynamical systems. Phys Rev Lett 64(20):2354–2357PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Moore C (1991) Generalized shifts: unpredictability and undecidability in dynamical systems. Nonlinearity 4:199–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Moore C (1998) Dynamical recognizers: Real-time language recognition by analog computers. Theor Comput Sci 201:99–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Moore C, Crutchfield JP (2000) Quantum automata and quantum grammars. Theor Comput Sci 237:275–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Neville HJ, Nicol J, Barss A, Forster K, Garrett M (1991) Syntactically based sentence processing classes: Evidence from event-related potentials. J Cogn Neurosci 6:233–244Google Scholar
  90. Newell A, Simon HA (1976) Computer science as empirical inquiry: symbols and search. Commun Assoc Comput Mach 19:113–126Google Scholar
  91. Niedermeyer E, da Silva FHL (eds) (1999) Electroencephalography. Basic principles, clinical applications, and related fields, 4th edn. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  92. Osterhout L, Holcomb PJ (1992) Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. J Mem Lang 31:785–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Osterhout L, Holcomb PJ (1995) Event-related potentials and language comprehension. In: Coles MGH, Rugg MD (eds) Electrophysiology of mind: event-related brain potentials and cognition, chap 6. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  94. Osterhout L, Holcomb PJ, Swinney DA (1994) Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: evidence of the application of verb information during parsing. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 20(4):786–803PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Pollack JB (1991) The induction of dynamical recognizers. Mach Learn 7:227–252. Also published in Port and van Gelder (1995), pp 283–312.Google Scholar
  96. Port RF, van Gelder T (eds) (1995) Mind as motion: explorations in the dynamics of cognition. MIT Press, Cambridge (MA)Google Scholar
  97. Regan D (1989) Human brain electrophysiology: evoked potentials and evoked magnetic fields in science and medicine. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  98. Rumelhart DE, McClelland JL, the PDP Research Group (eds) (1986) Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition, vol I. MIT Press, Cambridge (MA)Google Scholar
  99. Schinkel S, Marwan N, Kurths J (2007) Order patterns recurrence plots in the analysis of ERP data. Cogn Neurodyn. doi:10.1007/s11571-007-9023-z
  100. Schlesewsky M, Bornkessel I (2006) Context-sensitive neural responses to conflict resolution: electrophysiological evidence from subject–object ambiguities in language comprehension. Brain Res 1098:139–152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Shannon CE, Weaver W (1949) The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, reprint 1963Google Scholar
  102. Sharbrough F, Chartrian GE, Lesser RP, Lüders H, Nuwer M, Picton TW (1995) American Electroencephalographic Society guidelines for standard electrode position nomenclature. J Clin Neurophysiol 8:200–202Google Scholar
  103. Shieber SM (1985) Evidence against the context-freeness of natural language. Linguist Philos 8:333–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Siegelmann HT (1996) The simple dynamics of super Turing theories. Theor Comput Sci 168:461–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Smolensky P (1990) Tensor product variable binding and the representation of symbolic structures in connectionist systems. Artif Intell 46:159–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Smolensky P (1991) Connectionism, constituency, and the language of thought. In: Loewer B, Rey G (eds) Meaning in mind. Fodor and his critics, chap 12. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 201–227Google Scholar
  107. Smolensky P (2006) Harmony in linguistic cognition. Cogn Sci 30:779–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Smolensky P, Legendre G (2006) The harmonic mind. From neural computation to optimality-theoretic grammar, vol 1: cognitive architecture. MIT Press, Cambridge (MA)Google Scholar
  109. Stabler EP (1997) Derivational minimalism. In: Retoré C (eds) Logical aspects of comutational linguistics, Springer lecture notes in computer science, vol 1328. Springer, New York, pp 68–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Stabler EP, Keenan EL (2003) Structural similarity within and among languages. Theor Comput Sci 293:345–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Staudacher P (1990) Ansätze und Probleme prinzipienorientierten Parsens. In: Felix SW, Kanngießer S, Rickheit G (eds) Sprache und Wissen. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen, pp 151–189Google Scholar
  112. Sweeney-Reed CM, Nasuto SJ (2007) A novel approach to the detection of synchronisation in EEG based on empirical mode decomposition. J Cogn Neurosci. doi:10.1007/s10827-007-0020-3
  113. Tabor W (1998) Dynamical automata. Technical report TR98-1694, Cornell Computer Science Department, Department of Psychology, Uris Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853Google Scholar
  114. Tabor W (2000) Fractal encoding of context-free grammars in connectionist networks. Expert Syst Int J Knowl Eng Neural Networ 17(1):41–56Google Scholar
  115. Tabor W, Tanenhaus MK (1999) Dynamical models of sentence processing. Cogn Sci 23(4):491–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Tabor W, Juliano C, Tanenhaus MK (1997) Parsing in a dynamical system: an attractor-based account of the interaction of lexical and structural constraints in sentence processing. Lang Cogn Process 12(2/3):211–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Thelen E, Schöner G, Scheier C, Smith LB (2001) The dynamics of embodiment: a field theory of infant perseverative reaching. Behav Brain Sci 24:1–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. van Valin R (1993) A synopsis of role and reference grammar. In: van Valin R (eds) Advances in role and reference grammar. Benjamins, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  119. Vasishth S, Lewis RL (2006a) Argument-head distance and processing complexity: explaining both locality and antilocality effects. Language 82Google Scholar
  120. Vasishth S, Lewis RL (2006b) Human language processing: symbolic models. In: Brown K (eds) Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, vol 5. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 410–419Google Scholar
  121. Vasishth S, Brüssow S, Lewis RL, Drenhaus H (2008) Processing polarity: how the ungrammatical intrudes on the grammatical. Cogn Sci 32(4)Google Scholar
  122. van der Velde F, de Kamps M (2006) Neural blackboard architectures of combinatorial structures in cognition. Behav Brain Sci 29:37–108PubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. Vos SH, Gunter TC, Schriefers H, Friederici AD (2001) Syntactic parsing and working memory: the effects of syntactic complexity, reading span, and concurrent load. Lang Cogn Process 16(1):65–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Vosse T, Kempen G (2000) Syntactic structure assembly in human parsing: a computational model based on competitive inhibition and a lexicalist grammar. Cognition 75:105–143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. van der Waerden BL (2003) Algebra, vol 2. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  126. Wegner P (1998) Interactive foundations of computing. Theor Comput Sci 192:315–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Wennekers T, Garagnani M, Pulvermüller F (2006) Language models based on hebbian cell assemblies. J Physiol (Paris) 100:16–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Wright JJ, Rennie CJ, Lees GJ, Robinson PA, Bourke PD, Chapman CL, Gordon E, Rowe DL (2004) Simulated electrocortical activity at microscopic, mesoscopic and global scales. Int J Bifurcat Chaos 14(2):853–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter beim Graben
    • 1
  • Sabrina Gerth
    • 2
  • Shravan Vasishth
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Psychology and Clinical Language SciencesUniversity of ReadingReadingUK
  2. 2.Institute for LinguisticsUniversity of PotsdamPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations