Question
Asked 30 August 2018

Optimal SOA for sentence reading ERP study in children?

Hi everyone! I'm preparing an ERP study of written sentence processing in school aged children. My target population are children between 8 and 11 years old, and I'm aiming to examine N400 and P600 effects after semantic and syntax violations. Sentences will be displayed on the center of a computer screen, word by word (rapid serial visual presentation). I wanted to ask your opinion about what would be the optimal SOA (stimulus onset asynchrony) to maximize the probability of actually seeing the language-related ERP effects, as it has been shown that presentation rate may affect the magnitude of these potentials, at least in certain populations (like L2 and older adults).
Thanks for your kind attention!

Most recent answer

Angel Tabullo
National Scientific and Technical Research Council
Thanks Nayereh, I already have Luck's book (but it does not deal with reading ERP studies in children, specifically), I'll try to get the one by Friederici...

All Answers (4)

Julie M. Schneider
University of California, Los Angeles
Hi Angel Tabullo --really neat study design! In our study of typically developing children this same age and slightly older, we had them "read sets of three sentences presented word-by-word with a target word, either real or novel, as the last word in each sentence. Sentences were presented word-by-word with each word appearing for 500 ms and a blank screen between words appearing for 300 ms. The blank screen directly preceding the target word was presented for 600 ms to establish a baseline for analysis of the novel word. The target word was presented for 600 ms" (Abel, Schneider & Maguire, 2018). I would also recommend Hagoort, 2003 "Interplay between Syntax and Semantics during Sentence Comprehension: ERP Effects of Combining Syntactic and Semantic Violations" for guidelines in study design (i.e. start-up and wrap-up effects) that I have found most useful for my own studies of semantic and syntactic processing in 8-12 year olds. Look forward to reading more of your work in the future!
1 Recommendation
Angel Tabullo
National Scientific and Technical Research Council
Thank you so much, that was really helpful! I'll be getting those articles right away.
After reviewing the literature, i was considering to go with a 1000 ms SOA, with 700 ms for each word and a 300 ms blank screen in between. In this way, i was hoping to make sure that all children were able to read all the words with ease (sentences are 4-7 words long).
Every opinion is welcome! I'll share the results as soon as I have them.
Angel Tabullo
National Scientific and Technical Research Council
Thanks Nayereh, I already have Luck's book (but it does not deal with reading ERP studies in children, specifically), I'll try to get the one by Friederici...

Similar questions and discussions

Syntacticians: For AGREE, how can one identify which features are interpretable and which are uninterpretable for a given constituent?
Question
10 answers
  • Mark Andrew De VosMark Andrew De Vos
My question is, for a given AGREE relationship between X and Y, how could one determine which category hosts the interpretable feature and which one hosts the uninterpretable one?
AGREE is driven by interpretable/uninterpretable feature pairs e.g. uPhi/iPhi or uWH/iWH etc. For examples like phi checking between T and a subject, it is taken for granted that the subject has interpretable phi features and that T has uPhi features; but the subject has uT (or uCase) features while T has iT (or iCase).
One argument for this seems to be, in part, semantic: there is a semantic reality to, for example, number which make it plausible that number is interpretable on nouns, while uninterpretable on verbs. (Although, one must also concede that number on pluractional or reciprocal verbs is not all that far fetched, which undermines this type of argument). However, when looking at other constructions, or other types of syntactic interaction, it's not always clear that this type of argument works.
For example, in topicalization constructions such as (a,b,c), let's assume that the topicalized constituent moves to SpecTopicP to check a Topic feature. But is iTopic a feature on the moved constituent and uTopic on the head of TopicP? Or is it the other way around? Is this something that could be parameterized? More specifically, I'd like to know what *arguments* could be marshalled either way.
(a) Peter Florrick I could vote for.

Related Publications

Thesis
Full-text available
We recorded event-related potentials (ERPs) in adults and children during auditory stimulus presentation. The critical condition was the violation of the thematic role assignment in sentences like “The big table was wiping”, which favours a Theme inter- pretation according to semantic cues. The syntactic cues, however, signal an Agent interpretatio...
Article
We recorded event-related brain potentials (ERPs) while participants read sentences, some of which contained an anomalous word. In the critical sentences (e.g., The meal was devouring…), the syntactic cues unambiguously signaled an Agent interpretation of the subject noun, whereas the semantic cues supported a Theme interpretation. An Agent interpr...
Article
Full-text available
In sentence processing, semantic and syntactic violations elicit differential brain responses observable in event-related potentials: An N400 signals semantic violations, whereas a P600 marks inconsistent syntactic structure. Does the brain register similar distinctions in scene perception? To address this question, we presented participants with s...
Got a technical question?
Get high-quality answers from experts.