Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports

, Volume 4, Issue 6, pp 466–470 | Cite as

Event-related brain potential studies in language

  • Angela D. Friederici
Article

Abstract

A review of the four relevant language-related components in event-related brain potentials (ERPs) is provided. The different ERP components are functionally specified: the N400 component reflects semantic processes, the ELAN reflects early syntactic processes, the P600 reflects late syntactic reanalysis, and the CPS reflects aspects of prosodic processing. The neural generators of these components are discussed as well, both in the context of available brain imaging data and ERPs from lesion patient studies.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Bookheimer S: Functional MRI of language: new approaches to understanding the cortical organization of semantic processing. Annu Rev Neurosci 2002, 25:151–188.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Friederici AD: Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends Cogn Sci 2002, 6:78–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Friederici AD, Wang Y, Herrmann CS, et al.: Localization of early syntactic processes in frontal and temporal cortical areas: a magnetoencephalographic study. Hum Brain Mapp 2000, 11:1–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Friederici AD, Kotz SA: The brain basis of syntactic processes: functional imaging and lesion studies. Neuroimage, Special Issue 2003, 20:S8-S17.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kotz SA, Friederici AD: Electrophysiology of normal and pathological language processing. J Neurolinguistics 2003, 16:43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kutas M, Hillyard SA: Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science 1980, 207:203–205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kutas M, Hillyard SA: Event-related brain potentials to grammatical errors and semantic anomalies. Memory Cognit 1983, 11:539–550.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Holcomb PJ, Neville HJ: Semantic priming in visual and auditory language lexical decision: a between modality comparison. Lang Cogn Proc 1990, 5:281–312.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Van Petten C: Words and sentences: event-related brain potential measures. Psychophysiology 1995, 32:511–525.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bentin S, McCarthy G, Wood CC: Event-related potentials, lexical decision and semantic priming. Electroenceph Clin Neurophysiol 1985, 60:343–355.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rugg MD: The effects of semantic priming and word repetition on event-related potentials. Psychophysiology 1985, 22:642–647.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Van Petten C, Kutas M: Interactions between sentence context and word frequency in event-related brain potentials. Memory Cognit 1990, 18:380–393.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chwilla DJ, Brown C, Hagoort P: The N400 as a function of level processing. Psychobiology 1995, 32:274–285.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Besson M, Kutas M, Van Petten C: An event-related potential (ERP) analysis of semantic congruity and repetition effects in sentences. J Cogn Neurosci 1992, 4:132–149.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Deacon D, Hewitt S, Yang CM, Nagata M: Event-related potential indices of semantic priming using masked and unmasked words: evidence that the N400 does not reflect a post-lexical process. Cognit Brain Res 2000, 9:137–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Holcomb PJ: Automatic and attentional processing: an eventrelated brain potential analysis of semantic priming. Brain Lang 1988, 35:66–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Halgren E, Dhond P, Christensen N, et al.: N400-like magnetoencephalography responses modulated by semantic context, word frequency, and lexical class in sentences. Neuroimage 2002, 17:1101–1116.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Helenius P, Salmelin R, Service E, Connolly JF: Distinct time courses of word and context comprehension in the left temporal cortex. Brain 1998, 121:1133–1142.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Halgren E, Baudena P, Heit P, et al.: Spatio-temporal stages in face and word processing. I. Depth-recorded potentials in the human occipital, temporal and parietal lobes. J Physiol Paris 1994, 88:1–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thompson-Schill SL, D’Esposito M, Aguirre GK, Farah MJ: Role of left inferior prefrontal cortex in retrieval of semantic knowledge: a reevaluation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1997, 94:14792–14797.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fiez JA: Phonology, semantics, and the role of the left inferior prefrontal cortex. Hum Brain Mapp 1997, 5:79–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Frazier L: Sentence processing: a tutorial review. In Attention and Performance 12: The Psychology of Reading. Edited by Hove CM. United Kingdom: Erlbaum; 1987:559–586.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Friederici AD: The time course of syntactic activation during language processing: A model based on neuropsychological and neurophysiological data. Brain Lang 1995, 50:259–281.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Neville HJ, Nicol J, Barss A, et al.: Syntactically based sentence processing classes: evidence from event-related brain potential. J Cogn Neurosci 1991, 3:151–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gunter TC, Friederici AD, Hahne A: Brain responses during sentence reading: visual input affects central processes. Neuroreport 1999, 10:3175–3178.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Münte TF, Heinze HJ, Mangun GR: Dissociation of brain activity related to syntactic and semantic aspects of language. J Cogn Neurosci 1993, 7:33–50.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Friederici AD, Pfeifer E, Hahne A: Event-related brain potentials during natural speech processing: effects of semantic, morphological and syntactic violations. Cognit Brain Res 1993, 1:183–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hahne A, Friederici AD: Electrophysiological evidence for two steps in syntactic analysis: Early automatic and late controlled processes. J Cogn Neurosci 1999, 11:194–205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Friederici AD, Hahne A, Mecklinger A: The temporal structure of syntactic parsing: Early and late event-related brain potential effects elicited by syntactic anomalies. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 1996, 22:1219–1248.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hagoort P, Brown C., Groothusen J: The syntactic positive shift as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Lang Cogn Processes 1993, 8:439–483.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gunter TC, Stowe LA, Mulder G: When syntax meets semantics. Psychophysiology 1997, 34:660–676.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Penke M, Weyerts H, Gross M, et al.: How the brain processes complex words: An event-related potential study of German verb inflections. Cognit Brain Res 1997, 6:37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rösler F, Friederici AD, Pütz P, Hahne A: Event-related brain potentials while encountering semantic and syntactic constraint violations. J Cogn Neurosci 1993, 5:345–362.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Coulson S, King JW, Kutas M: Expect the unexpected: eventrelated brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Lang Cogn Processes 1998, 13:21–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Frisch S, Schlesewsky M: The N400 reflects problems of thematic hierarchizing. Neuroreport 2001, 12:3391–3394. This report indicates for the first time that the N400 does not only reflect semantic processes, but that a similar ERP pattern is observed for problems in hierarchizing.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bornkessel I, Schlesewsky M, Friederici AD: Beyond syntax: Language-related positivities reflect the revision of hierarchies. Neuroreport 2002, 13:361–364.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Osterhout L, Holcomb PJ: Event-related potentials and syntactic anomaly. J Memory Lang 1992, 31:785–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Osterhout L, Holcomb PJ: Event-related potentials and syntactic anomaly: Evidence of anomaly detection during the perception of continuous speech. Lang Cogn Processes 1993, 8:413–437.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Osterhout L, Holcomb PJ, Swinney DA: Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: Evidence of the application of verb information during parsing. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cognition 1994, 20:786–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Friederici AD, Mecklinger A: Syntactic parsing as revealed by brain responses: first-pass and second-pass parsing processes. J Psycholinguist Res 1996, 25:157–176.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mecklinger A, Schriefers H, Steinhauer K, Friederici AD: Processing relative clauses varying on syntactic and semantic dimensions: an analysis with event-related potentials. Memory Cognit 1995, 23:477–494.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Friederici AD, Kotz SA, Steinhauer K, von Cramon DY: The neural basis of the prosody-syntax interplay: the role of the corpus callosum. Brain Lang 2003, 87:133–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Osterhout L, Holcomb PJ: Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. J Memory Lang 1992, 31:785–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    McKinnon R, Osterhout L: Constraints on movement phenomena in sentence processing: evidence from event-related brain potentials. Lang Cogn Processes 1996, 11:495–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kaan E, Harris A, Gibson E, Holcomb P: The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Lang Cogn Processes 2000, 15:159–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Friederici AD, von Cramon DY, Kotz SA: Language related brain potentials in patients with cortical and subcortical left hemisphere lesions. Brain 1999, 122:1033–1047.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Frisch S, Kotz SA, von Cramon DY, Friederici AD: Why the P600 is not just a P300: the role of the basal ganglia. Clin Neurophysiol 2003, 114:336–340.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Steinhauer K, Alter K, Friederici AD: Brain potentials indicate immediate use of prosodic cues in natural speech processing. Nat Neurosci 1999, 2:191–196.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Pannekamp A, Toepel U, Alter A, et al.: Prosody driven sentence processing: an ERP study. J Cogn Neurosci 2004, In press. This paper demonstrates that the CPS reflects the processing of IPhs, even in the absence of lexical information.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Meyer M, Alter K, Friederici AD, et al.: FMRI reveals brain regions mediating slow prosodic modulations in spoken sentences. Hum Brain Mapp 2002, 17:73–88. This fMRI study provides evidence that the suprasegmental prosodic processes are supported by the right hemisphere.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Science Inc 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angela D. Friederici
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of NeuropsychologyMax Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain SciencesLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations