ArticlePDF Available

The Effect of Emotional State on the Processing of Morphosyntactic and Semantic Reversal Anomalies in Japanese: Evidence from Event-Related Brain Potentials

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

The present study examined the locus responsible for the effect of emotional state on sentence processing in healthy native speakers of Japanese, using event-related brain potentials. The participants were induced into a happy, neutral, or sad mood and then subjected to electroencephalogram recording during which emotionally neutral sentences, including grammatical sentences (e.g. window-NOM close vi, ‘The window closes.’), morphosyntactically-violated sentences (e.g. window-ACC close vi, Lit. ‘Close the window.’), and semantically-reversed sentences (e.g. window-NOM close vt, ‘The window closes pro.’) were presented. The results of the ERP experiment demonstrated that while the P600 effect elicited by morphosyntactic violation was not modulated by mood, the P600 effect elicited by semantic reversal anomaly was observed only in participants previously induced into a happy mood. The LAN and N400 were not sensitive to the participants’ transient emotional state. These results suggest intact memory access and impaired integration of syntactic and semantic information in individuals in a sad mood.
The effect of mood on LAN, N400, and P600 effects. The X-axis represents individual mood rating in the mood induction sessions (z-score). The Y-axis represents the ERP difference between the ungrammatical and grammatical conditions (i.e. case-assignment violation minus grammatical condition in the intransitive condition, semantic reversal anomaly minus grammatical condition in the transitive condition). Negativity is plotted upward. The solid and dashed lines indicate an interaction of MOOD×LAN/N400/P600\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\hbox {MOOD} \times \hbox { LAN/N400/P600}$$\end{document} in the intransitive and transitive conditions, respectively. The interaction of MOOD ×\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\times $$\end{document} CASE was significant in the transitive condition (p=0.02\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$p= 0.02$$\end{document}), but not in the intransitive condition (p=0.40\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$p= 0.40$$\end{document}) in the late P600 time-window
… 
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
!
1!
Journal!of!Psycholinguist!Research!
DOI!10.1007/s10936-017-9528-5!
!
The!effect!of!emotional!state!on!the!processing!of!morphosyntactic!and!semantic!reversal!
anomalies!in!Japanese:!Evidence!from!event-related!brain!potentials!
!
Masataka!Yano!1,!2,!3,!*,!Yui!Suzuki!1,!*,!Masatoshi!Koizumi!1,4! !
!
1!Department!of!Linguistics,!Graduate!School!of!Arts!and!Letters,!Tohoku!University,!Sendai,!Japan!
2!Japan!Society!for!the!Promotion!of!Science,!Tokyo,!Japan!!
3 Department!of!Linguistics,!University!of!Maryland,!College!Park,!MD,!USA! !
4!Harvard-Yenching!Institute!
masayano@kyudai.jp!
!
Abstract!The!present! study!examined!the! locus!responsible!for!the! effect!of!emotional! state!on!sentence!
processing! in! healthy! native! speakers!of! Japanese,! using! event-related! brain! potentials.! The! p articipants!
were! induced! into!a! happy,! neutral,! or! sad! mood! and! then! subjected! to!electroencephalogram! (EEG)!
recording!during!which!emotionally!neutral!sentences,!including!grammatical!sentences!(e.g.!window-NOM!
close!vi,!‘The!window!closes.’),!morphosyntactically-violated!sentences!(e.g.!window-ACC#close#vi,!Lit.!‘Close!
the!window.’),!and!semantically-reversed!sentences!(e.g.!window-NOM!close#vt,!The!window!closes!pro.’)!
were! presented.! The! results! of! the! ERP! experiment! demonstr ated! that! while!the! P600! effect! elicited! by!
morphosyntactic! violation! was! not! modulated! by! mood,! the! P600! effect! elicited! by! semantic! reversal!
anomaly!was!observed!only!in!participants!previously!induced!into!a!happy!mood.!The!LAN!and!N400!were!
not!sensitive!to!the!participants’!transient!emotional!state.!These!results!suggest!intact!memory!access!and!
impaired!integration!of!syntactic!and!semantic!information!in!individuals!in!a!sad!mood.! !
!
Keywords! sentence! comprehension,! mood,! event-related! brain! potentials! (ERPs),! P600,! LAN,!
morphosyntactic!violation,!semantic!reversal!anomaly!
1. Introduction!
Incremental! sentence! comprehension! involves! a! cycle! of! successive! activation! and! integration!
processes!(Retrieval-Integration!account,!Brouwer!et!al.,!2012;!2016).!That!is,!linguistic!input!activates!the!
retrieval!of!relevant!information!(e.g.!lexical!meaning),!which!is!followed!by!integration!of!different!types!of!
*!These!authors!equally!contributed!to!this!study.!
!
2!
information! into! an! exist ing! representation.!Th is!view! aligns! well! with! the! fact! that! a! biphasic! pattern! is!
often! observed! in! event-related! potential! (ERP)! experiments.! (Morpho)syntactic! violation!typically! elicits!
LAN!and!P600!effects!in! comparison!to! its! grammatical!counterpart!(Friederici!et!al.,! 1996;! Gunter! et! al.,!
1997;! Lau! et!al.,! 2006;! Molinaro! et! al.,! 2011;! Osterhout! and!Mobley,! 1995).! A! semantically! incongruent!
word!elicits!N400!effects,!often!followed!by!P600!effects,!as!compared!to!a!semantically!congruent!word!in!
a!context!(e.g.!Kutas! and!Hillyard,!1980;!Osterhout!and!Mobley,!1995;!Van! Petten!and!Luka,! 2012).!N400!
and! LAN! reflect!an! activation! cost! that! is! modulated! by! the! amount! of! pre-activation.! Because! linguistic!
anomalies! are! unexpected,! they! incur!a! higher! activation! cost.! On! the! other! hand,! P600! may! reflect! an!
integration!cost,!although!its!exact!nature!is!a!matter!of!great!debate!(e.g.!Brouwer!et!al.!2012;!Gouvea!et!
al.!2010;!Sassenhagen!et!al.!2014;!Sassenhagen!and!Bornkessel-Schlesewsky!2015).! !
Although!a!number!of!ERP!studies!have!revealed!the!mechanisms!underlying!sentence!processing,!the!
effects! of!psychological! factors,! such! as! emotional! state!(mood),! remain! largely! unknown.! It! has! been!
shown!that!emotional!states!affect!various!types! of!information!processing.!In! perceptual!processing,!for!
example,! a! spatial! span! of! attention!is! expanded! under!happy! mood! and! narrowed! under!sad! mood!
(Fredrickson!and!Branigan,!2005;! Gasper!and!Clore,!2002).!Happy!mood!is!associated!with! an!economical!
heuristic!strategy!and!the!use!of!world!knowledge,!whereas!sad!mood!is! associated!with!a! detailed,!more!
analytic! processing! strategy! (e.g.! Isen,! 2001;! Gasper! and!Clore,! 200;! Schwarz,! 2002).! Considering!that!
cognitive!systems,!including!language!faculty,!work!flexibly!by!interacting!with! one!another,!the! emotional!
state!is!also!expected!to!affect!sentence!processing.! !
Interestingly,! evidence! from! psychiatric! patients! demonstrated! intact! memory! access! and! impaired!
integration!processes.!Ruchsow!et!al.!(2008)!compared!P600!amplitudes!in!patients!with!partially!remitted!
major!depression!disorder!to!those! in!healthy!individuals.!Depressed!group!showed!a!reduced!P600!effect!
for! category! violation.! However,! no! substantial! difference! was! apparent! between! the! patients! and! the!
healthy!control!group! in! terms! of! the!LAN!effect!for! category! violation!and!the!N400!effect! for!semantic!
violation.! These! results! suggest! that!a! chronically! depressed!state! has! a! stronger! impact! on! P600!
amplitudes,!suggesting!a!deficit!in!certain!types!of!integration!processes.! 1! !
Several! studies!have! examined! the! effect! of! mood! on!syntactic!and!semantic!processing! in! healthy!
adults!by! manipulating!the! mood! using!movies,!pictures,! and! a!short!narrative.! Regarding!
(morpho)syntactic! processing,! Jiménz-Ortega! et! al.! (2012)! manipulated! the! emotional! state! (within-
participant!factor)!by!presenting!a!paragraph!containing!emotionally!positive,!neutral,!and!negative!content!
prior! to! presenting! a! target! sentence! with! or! without! a!noun-adjective! number!agreement! violation! in!
Spanish!(*El# detective#privados,! the! detective! private.PL,! ‘the! private! detective’).! They! found! that! mood!
significantly!affected!the!LAN!effect,!with! a! larger!LAN!amplitude!upon! number! disagreement!in!positive!
1!A!similar!pattern!was!reported!in!schizophrenia!patients!(Kuperberg!et!al.,!2006a).!These!patients!showed!
an!N400!effect!for!semantic!violation.!Although!they!exhibited!a!P600!effect!for!morphosyntactic!violation,!
this!effect!decreased!for!semantic!reversal!anomaly,!such!as!‘For#breakfast,#the#eggs#would#only#eat#…’!(see!
also!Kuperberg!et!al.!2006b;!Lee!et!al.,!2016;!Sitnikova!et!al.,!2002).! !
!
3!
and!negative!mood!groups!as!compared!to!that!in!neutral!mood!group.!In!their!experiment,!the!emotional!
narrative!did!not!modulate! a! P600! effect!in!response!to!the!number!disagreement.!This!lack! of! effect!of!
emotions!on!P600!is!consistent!with!the!result!of!van! Berkum!et!al.!(2013),!who!manipulated!participants’!
mood!using!happy!or!sad!movie!clips!(between-participant!factor)!and!found!no!differences!in!P600!effect!
for!English!subject-verb!agreement!violation!between!sad!and!happy!participants.!In!contrast,!Vissers!et!al.!
(2010)!and!Verhees!et!al.!(2015)!showed!a!smaller!P600!effect!for!a!subject-verb!agreement!violation!in!sad!
as! compared! to!happy! participants.!In! their! experiments,! happy! and! sad! film! clips! were! presented! to!
manipulate!the!mood!(between-participant!factor),! and!then,!target!sentences!with!or!without! a!subject-
verb!number!disagreement!in! Dutch!were! presented!(e.g.! Der#dochter#die# over#haar#ouders#spraken,!the!
daughter! who! about! her! parents! talked.PL,!‘The! daughter! who! talked! about! her! parents’).!2!Regarding!
semantic!reversal!anomaly,!Vissers!et!al.!(2013)!found!a!significant!P600!effect!in!native!speakers!of!Dutch!
under!happy!mood!but! not! in! those! under!sad! mood!(e.g.! De# studenten# die# aan# de# docent# lesgaven#
kwamen#het#lokaal#in,!The!student! who!on!the!teacher! gave!lesson!entered!the!room,! ‘The!students!who!
taught! the! teacher! entered! the! room ’).! For! semantic!processing,! Chwilla! et! al.!(2011)!showed!a! reduced!
(but!still!significant)!N400!effect! for! a! less!expected!word!under!sad!mood!in! the! experiment!with!Dutch!
speakers,! in! which! film! clips! were! us ed! to! induce! a! happy! or! sad! mood!(between-participant! factor).! In!
contrast,! Pinheiro! et! al.! (2013)!presented! pictures! with! positive,! neutral,! and! negative! valence.! In! their!
study,!the! mood! was! manipulated! as! a! within-participant! factor,! but! each! experiment!was! conducted!
separately! at! least! a! week! following! the! experiment.! They! found! a! robust! N400! effect! when! comparing!
highly!and!less!predicted!English!words!under!both!happy!and!sad!moods.!Jiménz-Ortega!et!al.!(2012)!also!
reported! that! mood! did! not! influe nce! the! N400! effect!in! response! to! semantic! incongruence! between! a!
noun!and!a!following!adjective!in!Spanish.! 3!Overall,!the!results!of!the!studies!exploring!the!effect!of!mood!
on!N400! and! P600! effects! in! healthy! adults!do! not! seem!consistent.! Because! these! studies! involved!
different!experimental!designs!and!languages,!the!cause!of!discrepancy!between!the!results!is!unclear!(see!
Discussion).! !
The!present!ERP!study!examines!the!processing!of!case-assignment!and!semantic!reversal!anomalies!in!
healthy!Japanese!adults! with!transiently!induced!happiness! and!sadness!to!clarify!the! locus!of!processing!
deficit! associated! with! a! sad! state.! Japanese! is! typologically! different! from!the! languages! examined!by!
previous!studies,!in!that!case!particles!are!attached!to!a!noun!(e.g.!‘-ga#for!the!nominative!case).!Although!
case-assignment! violation! and!disagreements! in! person,! number,! and! gender! are! assumed! to! be!
2!Jiménz-Ortega! et! al.! (2012)! suggest! that! the! procedure! of! mood! induction! (linguistic! or! non-linguistic!
visual!stimuli)!may!play!an! important!role!in! determining!which!areas!of!the!brain!become! activated,!and!
this!difference!may!account!for!the!discrepancy!between!their!result!and!that!by!Vissers!et!al.’s!(2010)!(see!
Jiménz-Ortega!et!al.,!2012:!9).! !
3!A! factor! that! might! underlie! the! discrepancy! between! these! N400! studies! is! participants’! sex! (cf.!
Federmeier!et!al.,!2001).!In! Chwilla!et!al.!(2011),!only!female!speakers!were!recruited!in! their!experiment,!
as! in! Vissers! et! al.! (2010;! 2013)! and! Verhees! et! al.! (2015).! However,! both! female! and! male! speakers!
participated!in!Jiménz-Ortega!et!al.’s!(2012)!experiment,!and!only!male!speakers!participated!in!Pinheiro!et!
al.’s!(2013)!experiment.!
!
4!
morphosyntactic!violations,! their!functions!are!different.! For!example,!case!information!plays!an!essential!
role!in!determining!the!thematic!roles!of!arguments! in!Japanese!(e.g.!‘-ga’! indicates! an! AGENT!role!in!an!
active!transitive!sentence).!Thus,! it! could!be!that!the!effect! of!mood!on!case-assignment! violation!differs!
from!that!on!agreement!violation.! We!compared!the! effect!of!mood! on!case-assignment! violation!(e.g.!*!
mado-o#simaru,!window-ACC!close!vi,!Lit.!closes!the!window)!with!that!on!semantic!reversal!anomaly!(e.g.!
*! mado-ga# simeru,! window-NOM! close! vt,# ‘The! window! closes! pro’).! Case-assignment! violation! can! be!
detected! by! integrating! morphosyntactic! information! of! the! argument! and!its! verb,! whereas! world!
knowledge!and!(morpho)syntactic!information!have! to!be! integrated!to! detect!semantic! reversal!anomaly!
as! such! sentences! are! well-formed! syntactically! but! lead! to! a! mismatch!between! a! syntactically!licensed!
interpretation! (i.e.! ‘window’!is!an! AGENT! of! ‘close’)! and! a! semantically! plausible! interpretation! (i.e.!
‘window’! is! a! THEME! of! ‘close’).! Previous! studies! have! observed! a! P600! effect! for! semantic! reversal!
anomaly,!which!superficially!resembled!a!P600!effect!in!response!to!(morpho)syntactic!violation!in!terms!of!
polarity,!peak!latency,!and!topographical!distribution!(Chinese:!Chow!and!Phillips,!2013;!Dutch:!Hoeks!et!al.,!
2004;!Kolk! et!al.,!2003;!van! Herten!et!al.,!2005;!English:!Kim! and!Osterhout,!2005,!Kuperberg!et!al.,!2003,!
2006,! 2007,! Japanese:! Oishi! and! Sakamoto,! 2009;! see! Bornkessel-Schlesewsky!and! Schlesewsky,! 2008,!
Brouwer!et!al.,!2012;!Kuperberg,!2007! for!a!review).!Although!the!P600! has!been!traditionally!associated!
with!difficulties!in!syntactic!processing,!the!effect!observed!in!cases!of!semantic!reversal!anomaly!suggests!
that!it!reflects!a!more!general!processing!difficulty!or!that!several!types!of!P600!exist,!each!of!which!reflects!
a! distinct! underlying! process.! To! account! for! a! P600! effect! for!grammatically! correct!but! semantically!
anomalous! sentences,! several! studies! have! proposed! the! multi-stream! processing! model,! according! to!
which!a! heuristic-based! stream! processes! a! semantically! plausible! analysis! irrespective! of! grammatical!
incongruity,!at!least! in!parallel!with!the!algorithmic,!(morpho)syntax-based!processing!stream!(Kuperberg,!
2007;!van!Herten,!2005).!This!model!attributes!P600!for! semantic! reversal! anomaly! to! the!conflict!of!the!
outputs! computed! by!these! two! processing! streams!(see! also! Brouw er! et! al.,! 2012;! 2016! for! a! different!
view).! If! sad! mood! increases! the! dependence! on! analytic!processing! (cf.! Schwarz,! 2002),! the! conflict!
between!the!outputs!from!the!heuristic-based!and!analytic-based!streams!may!not!occur.!Accordingly,!if!a!
semantic! P600! effect! for! semantic! reversal! anomaly!is! elicited! by! a! conflict! between! the! heuristic-based!
and!morphosyntax-based!processing,!and!a!syntactic!P600!for!case-assignment!violation!by!a!conflict!within!
the!morphosyntax-based!processing,!the!amplitude!of!semantic! P600!effect!should!decrease!as!compared!
to!that!of!syntactic!P600!in!a!sad!state.! !
!
2. Experiment!
2.1. Participants!
Thirty-nine!native!female!speakers!of!Japanese!from!Tohoku!University!participated!in!the!experiment!
(M!=!21.5,! SD! =! 1.5,! range:! 18.123.0).! We! recruited!female! participants! only! because! Federmeier!et! al.!
(2001)! showed!they! were! more! sensitive! to! experimentally-induced! mood! than! male! participants.! All!
!
5!
participants!were!classified!as!right-handed!based!on!the!Edinburgh!handedness!inventory!(Oldfield,!1971),!
had! normal! or! corrected-to-normal! vision! and! no! history! of! reading! disability!or! neurological! or! mental!
disorder.!Written!informed!consent!was!obtained!from!all!participants!prior!to!the!experiment,!after!which!
they!were!asked!to!complete!a!questionnaire!to!assess!their!depression! level!(M!=!38.7,!SD!=!5.60,!range:!
2749)!(Zung,!1965).! Financial!compensation!for! participation!in!the! experiment!was!provided.! The!study!
was!approved!by!the!Ethics!Committee!of!the!Graduate!School!of!Arts!and!Letters,!Tohoku!University.!
!
2.2. Stimuli! !
We! created! experimental! sentences,! such! as! in! (1)! and! (2),! in! which! case! particles!
(nominative/accusative)!and!verbs!(unaccusative/transitive)!were!manipulated.! !
!
(1)!Intransitive!sentences!
!a.!Intransitive!verbs!with!a!nominative!noun!
!mado-ga! ! simaru.!! !
!Window-NOM! !close!vi!
!‘The!window!closes.’!
!b.!Intransitive!verbs!with!an!accusative!noun!(case-assignment!violation)!
! *mado-o! ! ! simaru.!!
!Window-ACC! !close!vi!
! ‘Lit.!closes!the!window.’!
(2)!Transitive!sentences!
!a.!Transitive!verbs!with!a!nominative!noun!(semantic!reversal!anomaly)!
!*mado-ga! !pro! ! simeru.!
!Window-NOM! !close!vt!
!‘The!window!closes!pro.’!
!b.!Transitive!verbs!with!an!accusative!noun!
!pro!!!mado-o! !simeru.! ! !
!Window-ACC! !close!vt!
! ‘Pro!closes!the!window.’!
!
The!intransitive!verb! can! assign! a!nominative!but! not! an! accusative!case!to! its! argument.! Thus,! (1b)!
involves! a! case-assignment!violation,! whereas! (1a)!does! not.!The!transitive! verb! can!assign!a!nominative!
and! an! accusative! case! to! its! argument.! However,! (2a)! is! less! acceptable! than! (2b)! because! ‘window’! is!
more! likely! to! be!a! THEME! than! an! AGENT! of! close’! (i.e.!semantic! reversal! anomaly).! The! syntactic! and!
semantic! information! must! be!combined! to! detect! this! semantic! reversal! anomaly,! whereas!
morphosyntactic!information!alone!is!sufficient!to!detect!case-assignment!violation.!
!
6!
!The!experimental!sentences!were!short!compared!to! those!typically!used!in! other!ERP!experiments!
because!they!were!designed!for!future!testing!of!older! adults!and! patients!within!a! short!period!of! time.!
These!two-word!sentences!constitute!a! complete!sentence!in! Japanese!(a!pro-drop!language),!and! hence,!
their!processing!likely!involves!mechanisms!underlying!normal!sentence!comprehension.!
According! to! Yano! and!Sakamoto! (2016),! the! case-assignment!and! semantic! reversal! anomaly!in! (1)!
and!(2)!elicit!LAN!and!late! P600!effects!as!compared!to!their!control!sentences.!Note!that!the!ERP!effects!
for! semantic! reversal! anomaly! are!not! attributable! to! the! difference! in! pro-drop! position! as! lack!of! ERP!
effects!between!a!subject!pro-drop!and!object!pro-drop!sentence!was!reported!for!cases!with!no!semantic!
attraction!between!the!verb!and!its!argument!(proper!name)!(Yano!et!al.,!2014).! !
A!total!of!112!sets!of!experimental!sentences!were!distributed!into!four!lists!following!the!Latin!square!
method.! In! addition,! 112! filler! sentences! were! added! to! each! list.!These! sentences! were! presented!
randomly!using!Presentation!16.3!software!(Neurobehavioral!Systems).! !
!
2.3. Procedure!
The!participants!were!seated!in!a!dimly!lit!room!with!a!CRT!monitor! at!approximately!130!cm!in!front!
of!them.!The!presentation!of!the!stimuli!was!performed!in!the!centre!of!the!screen.!Our!participants!were!
randomly!assigned!into!the!happy-,!sad-,!or!neutral-mood!group!(13!participants!per!group).!During!each!of!
the!five!mood! induction!sessions,!the!happy-!and! sad-mood!groups!were!presented!happy!and!sad!movie!
clips,!respectively,!for!approximately!five!minutes,!whereas!the!neutral!group!was!not!presented!any!movie!
clips.!The!mood!was!manipulated!between!the!participants!because!it!was!not!easy!to!have!the!participants!
switch!from!a!happy!to!a!sad!mood!or!vice!versa!during!a!single!experiment!(cf.!Vissers!et!al.,!2010;!2013).!
After! the!mood! induction,! the! participants! were! asked! to! rate! their! mood! and!arousal!level! from! 3!
(sad/sleepy)! to! +3! (happy/awake) (mood:! M! =! 0.29,! SD! =! 1.54,! arousal:! M! =! 0.77,! SD! =! 1.63).! In!the!
following!EEG!recording!session,!they!were!presented!with!emotionally!neutral!sentences!shown!above.! !
Each! trial! began!with!a!fixation! of! 1000! ms,! followed! by! a! blank! for! 300! ms.! The!first! phrase! was!
presented!for!500!ms,!with!a!700!ms!ISI.!The!second!phrase!was!presented!for!800!ms,!followed!by!a!blank!
for!500!ms.! After!the!blank,! a!grammaticality!judgement!task! was!given!in! each!trial!to! encourage!careful!
reading!by!the!participants.!
!
2.4. Electrophysiological!Recording!
The! EEGs! were! recorded! from! 19! Ag! electrodes! (QuickAmp,! Brain! Products)! located!at! Fp1/2,! F3/4,!
C3/4,! P3/4,! O1/2,! F7/8,! T7/8,! P7/8,! Fz,! Cz,! and! Pz! according! to! the! international! 10–20! system! (Jasper,!
1958).!Additional! electrodes! were! placed! below! and! to! the!left!of!the!left!eye!to! monitor!horizontal!and!
vertical!eye!movements.!The!online!reference!was!set!to!the!average!of!all! electrodes,!and!the!EEGs!were!
re-referenced! offline! to! the! average! value! of! the! earlobes.! The! impedances!of! all! electrodes! were!
maintained!at!less!than!10!kΩ!throughout!the!experiment.!The!EEGs!were!amplified!with!a!bandpass!of!DC!
!
7!
to!200!Hz,!digitised!at!1000!Hz.!
!
2.5. Electrophysiological!Data!Analysis!
Statistical! analysis! was! conducted! using! linear! mixed-effects! (LME)! models!fitted! with! the! lmer!
function! of! the! lme4!package! (Bates! et! al.! 2015)! in! R! (R! Core! Team,! 2016)!to! examine! the! effect! of!
individual!emotional!state!on!the!ERPs.!This!analysis!has! been!used!in!recent!ERP!experiments!(e.g.!Payne!
et! al.! 2015,! 2016;! Payne! and! Federmeier! 2017;! Stites! et! al.!2017)! a nd! allows! for! handling! of!continuous!
covariates,!as!well!as!categorical!covariates.!The!models!included!the!independent!variables!of!interest!(i.e.!
MOOD,!VERB!and!CASE)!as!fixed!factors.!Each!experimental!condition!was!coded!so! that! the! nominative!
and!accusative!conditions!were!assigned!0.5!and!0.5,!respectively.!Similarly,!the!intransitive!and!transitive!
conditions!were!assigned!0.5!and!0.5,!respectively.!The!independent!variable!of!MOOD!was!the!z-scores!of!
participants’! self-assessment! of! their! mood!in! each! session.! The! participant,! item,! and! position! of! the!
electrode!were!treated!as!random! factors!(Payne!et! al.,! 2015).!Because!the!topographical!distribution!of!
LAN,!N400,!and!P600!is!well!known,!the!statistical!analyses!of!the!LAN!and!N400/P600!used!EEG!data!from!
the! left! fronto-central! region! (Fp1,! Fz,! F7,! F3,! C3,! Cz,! T7)! and! posterior! regions! (P7/8,! P3/4,! Pz,! O1/2),!
respectively.!The!dependent!variable!was!the!mean!amplitude!of!the!LAN/N400!time!window!(i.e.!300500!
ms)!and!the!P600! time! window! (i.e.!500700!ms! and! 700900!ms)!of! each!trial.!The!maximal!model!was!
built,! as! shown! in! (3)! below,! and! then,! a! final! m odel! was! selected! in! the! backward! stepwise! method!by!
comparing! models! using! the! anova!function! of! the! lme4!package.! All! final! models! are! presented! in! the!
supplementary!material.!P-values!were!calculated!by!submitting!the!final!model!to!the!lmer!function!of!the!
lmerTest!package! (Kuznetsova! et! al.,! 2016).! An!interaction! of! VERB!×! CASE! was! resolved! by! conducting!
separate! analyses! at! each! VERB! level,! and! simple! slopes! for! continuous! values! such! as! MOOD! were!
calculated!based!on!the!value!of!+1!SD!and!1!SD!from!the!mean!of!the!mood!rating!(Preacher!et!al.,!2006).! !
!
(3)!lmer!(EEG!~!MOOD!*!VERB!*!CASE!+!(1!+!MOOD!*!VERB!*!CASE!|subj)!+!(1+!MOOD!*!VERB!*!CASE!|set)! !
+!(1|ch)!+!Item!Order,!data!=!data)!
!
2.6. Results!
2.6.1.!Behavioural!data!
First,!we!compared!the!arousal!and!mood!ratings!among!the!three!groups.!The!ANOVA!found!no!main!
effect!of!GROUP!regarding!the! level!of! arousal!(F!(2,!36)!=!1.29,!p!>!0.10)!(Happy:!1.40(SD!=1.34),!Neutral:!
0.88(SD!=!1.36),!Sad:! 0.46(SD!=!1.42)).!The!main! effect!of!SESSION! and!the!two-way! interaction!were!not!
significant!(SESSION:!F#(4,!144)!=!0.55,!p#>!0.10;!Interaction:!F#(8,!144)!=!0.37,!p#>!0.10).!On!the!other!hand,!
the! main! effect! of! GROUP! was! significant! for! the! mood! rating! (F! (2,! 36)! =! 51.19,! p!<! 0.01),! reflecting! a!
significant!difference!between!the!happy!group!and!the!neutral!group!(t!(36)!=!2.38,!p!<!0.05),!between!the!
happy!group!and!sad!group!(t! (36)!=!9.79,!p!<! 0.01),!and!between!the!neutral!group! and!the!sad!group! (t#
!
8!
(36)!=7.41,!p!<!0.01)!(Happy:!1.44(SD!=!0.90),!Neutral:!0.76(SD!=!0.82),!Sad:!1.33(SD!=!1.21)).!These!results!
suggest!that! mood! induction! affected! the! participants’!emotional! state! but! not! their!arousal! level,! as!
expected.!
We! also! analysed!accuracy! and! reaction! times! in!the! gram maticality!judgment! task.! The! results! are!
shown!in!Figures!1!and!2.!The!repeated-measures!ANOVA!on!accuracy!showed!a!significant!main!effect!of!
MOOD,!VERB,! and!CASE,!and!a!significant! interaction!of!VERB!!CASE! (MOOD:!F#(2,!36)! =! 7.71,!p!<!0.01;!
VERB:!F#(1,! 36)! =!9.05,!p!<!0.01;! CASE:!F#(2,! 36)! =!15.8,!p!<!0.01;! Interaction:! F# (1,!36)!=!18.37,! p!<! 0.01).!
Regarding!the!effect!of!MOOD,!happy!and!sad!groups!were!more!accurate!than!the!neutral!group!(Happy!vs.!
Neutral:!t!(36)!=!2.89,!p#<!0.01;!Sad!vs.!Neutral:!t#(36)!=!3.74,!p#<!0.01).!The!two-way!interaction!of!VERB!!
CASE! showed!decreased! accuracy! of! the! judgment! for! the! grammatical! transitive! sentence!compared! to!
that!for!semantic!reversal!anomaly!and!case-assignment! violation! (F#(1,!36)!=! 24.03,! p# <!0.01;!F!(1,!36)! =!
24.28,!p#<!0.01).!The!repeated-measures!ANOVA!on!reaction!times!showed!a!main!effect!of!VERB,!reflected!
by!a!longer!response!time!for!the!transitive!conditions!compared!to! the!intransitive! conditions!(F#(2,!36)!=!
7.49,!p#<!0.01).!The!main!effect!of!MOOD!was!also!significant!(F#(2,!36)!=!3.31,!p!<!0.05).!Post!hoc!analyses!
revealed!a!significant!simple!main!effect!between!the!happy!and!sad!groups!(t#(36)!=!2.56,!p!<!0.05).!
!
* ** ** *
* * * *
** ** ** *
0"
20"
40"
60"
80"
100"
342AA
AA
3428A
55
3.986
7-
!
Figure!1.!Mean!accuracy!in!the!grammaticality!judgment!task.!Error!bars!indicate!standard!error.!
!
!
9!
   

 *


**


0"
100"
200"
300"
400"
500"
600"
700"
800"
5642CACD
-..2CACD
564ACD
-..ACD
1-77 508-3 9-
!
Figure!2.!Mean!Reaction!times!in!the!grammaticality!judgment!task.!Error!bars!indicate!standard!error.!
!
2.6.2.!Electrophysiological!data!
Figure! 3! shows! the! grand! average! ERP! during!the! second! phrase! of! the! sen tence.! Visual! inspection!
suggests!that!case-assignment!and!semantic!reversal!anomalies!elicited!early!negativity!and!posterior!P600!
effects!as!compared!to!grammatical!sentences.! !
!
!
10!
(*
*()**(-((-
))(*
)(*(*-(
-3#
13#
Fp1#
-3#
13#
Fp2#
-3#
13#
F7#
-3#
13#
F3#
-3#
13#
Fz#
-3#
13#
F4#
-3#
13#
F8#
-3#
13#
T7#
-3#
13#
C3#
-3#
13#
Cz#
-3#
13#
C4#
-3#
13#
T8#
-3#
13#
P7#
-3#
12#
P3#
-3#
13#
Pz#
-3#
13#
P4#
-3#
13#
P8#
-3#
13#
O1#
-3#
13#
O2#
(*
))(*
!
Figure!3.!Grand!average!ERPs!at!the!second!phrase.! !
The! blue! line! indicates! the! NOM-intransitive! condition,! the! red! line! t he! ACC-intransitive! condition! (case-
assignment! violation),! the! green! line! the! NOM-transitive! condition! (semantic! reversal! anomaly),! and! th e!
orange! line! the! ACC-transitive! condition.! The! X-axis! represents! the! time! duration,! and! each! hash! mark!
represents! 100! ms.! The! Y-axis! represents! the! voltage,! ranging! from! 3! to! 13! µV.! Negativity! is! plotted!
upward.! !
!
At!300500!ms,!a!significant!interaction!of!VERB!×!CASE!was!detected!at!the!left!frontal!region!(Table!
1).! The! analyses! performed! separately! at! each! VERB! level! revealed! a! significant!effect! of! CASE! in! the!
intransitive! condition!due!to!a! larger!negativity!effect!for!the! case-assignment! violation!compared!to!the!
grammatical!sentence!(Table!2).!In!the! transitive!condition,!the!CASE!effect!was!marginally!significant!due!
to! a! larger! negativity! for! the! semantic! reversal! anomaly.! A! significant! interaction! of! VERB! ×! CASE! was!
observed! at! the! posterior! region!(Table! 3).! Post! hoc! analyses! revealed! that! semantic! reversal! anomaly!
elicited!a!larger! negativity!compared!to!the! grammatical!sentence!(Table! 4).! In! this! time!window,!MOOD!
did!not!interact!with!VERB!×!CASE!(i.e.!LAN/N400)!at!the!left!frontal!or!posterior!region!(Figure!4).! !
!
!
11!
Table!1.!Summary!of!the!fixed!effects!in!the!LME!model!in!the!LAN!time!window!
!
+:!p!<!.10,!*:!p!<!.05,!**:!p!<!.01!
!
Table!2.!Summary!of!the!fixed!effects!of!the!intransitive!(left)!and!transitive!(right)!sentences!in!the!LAN!
time!window!
!
+:!p!<!.10,!*:!p!<!.05,!**:!p!<!.01!
!
Table!3.!Summary!of!the!fixed!effects!in!the!LME!model!in!the!N400!time!window!
!
+:!p!<!.10,!*:!p!<!.05,!**:!p!<!.01!
!
Table!4.!Summary!of!the!fixed!effects!of!the!intransitive!(left)!and!transitive!(right)!sentences!in!the!N400!
time!window! !
+:!p!<!.10,!*:!p!<!.05,!**:!p!<!.01!
!
!
12!
!
Figure!4.!The!effect!of!mood!on!LAN,!N400,!and!P600!effects.! !
The!X-axis!represents!individual!mood!rating!in!the!mood!induction!sessions!(z-score).!The!Y-axis!represents!
the!ERP!difference!between!the!ungrammatical!and!grammatical!conditions!(i.e.,!case-assignment!violation!
minus!grammatical!condition!in!the! intransitive!condition,!semantic!reversal!anomaly!minus! grammatical!
condition!in!the!transitive!condition).!Negativity!is! plotted!upward.!The! solid!and! dashed!lines!indicate! an!
interaction! of! MOOD! ×! LAN/N400/P600! in! the! intransitive! and! transitive! conditions,! respectively.! The!
interaction!of!MOOD!×!CASE!was!significant!in!the!transitive!condition!(p#=!0.02),!but!not!in!the!intransitive!
condition!(p#=!0.40)!in!the!late!P600!time-window.! !
!
At!500700! ms,! a! significant! interaction! of! VERB! ×! CASE!was! detected! (Table! 5).! A! significant!
interaction!of!MOOD!×!VERB!×!CASE!emerged!in!this!time!window.!Separate!analyses!revealed!no!effect!of!
CASE! for!intransitive! and! transitive! conditions!(Table! 6).! Although! the! interaction! of! MOOD! ×! CASE! was!
marginally! significant! for! the! transitive! condition,!a! significant! difference! between! semantic! reversal!
anomaly!and!its!grammatical!counterpart!was!not!found!in!either!happy!or!sad!mood!(Happy:!β!=!1.30,!t!=!
1.35,!p#=!0.18,!Sad:!β!=!1.92,!t!=!1.93,!p#=!0.06).! !
!
Table!5.!Summary!of!the!fixed!effects!in!the!LME!model!in!the!early!P600!time!window!
!
+:!p!<!.10,!*:!p!<!.05,!**:!p!<!.01!
!
!
13!
Table!6.!Summary!of!the!fixed!effects!of!the!intransitive!(left)!and!transitive!(right)!sentences!in!the!early!
P600!time!window!
!
+:!p!<!.10,!*:!p!<!.05,!**:!p!<!.01!
!
At!700900!ms,!the!interaction!of!VERB!×! CASE!was!significant!(Table!7).!In!the!intransitive!condition,!
the!effect!of!CASE!was!significant!without!the!interaction!of!MOOD!×!CASE,!indicating!that!case-assignment!
violation!elicited!a!larger!posterior!positivity!as!compared!to!grammatical!sentence,!irrespective!of!MOOD.!
In!the!transitive! condition,!the!effect! of!CASE!was!not!significant.!However,!the!MOOD!×! CASE!interaction!
reached! a! significant! level.! The! happy!participants! exhibited! a! greater! positivity! for!semantic! reversal!
anomaly!as!compared!to!grammatical!sentence!(β!=!2.29,!t!=!2.47,!p#<!0.05),!but!the!sad!participants!did!
not!(β#=!1.19,!t!=!0.98,!p#=!0.34)!(Table!8).! !
!
Table!7.!Summary!of!fixed!effects!in!the!LME!model!in!the!late!P600!time!window!
!
+:!p!<!.10,!*:!p!<!.05,!**:!p!<!.01!
!
Table!8.!Summary!of!fixed!effects!of!the!intransitive!(left)!and!transitive!(right)!sentences!in!the!late!P600!
time!window!
!
+:!p!<!.10,!*:!p!<!.05,!**:!p!<!.01!
!
We!also!analysed!the!participants’!depression!score!obtained!using!the!Self-Rating!Depression!Scale!as!
a!fixed!factor.!However,!this!factor!did!not!involve!a!VERB!×!CASE!interaction!in!any!time!window.! !
!
3. Discussion!
The!results!of!the!ERP!experiment!showed!a!lack!of!mood!effect!on!LAN!and!N400!for!morphosyntactic!
!
14!
and!semantic! reversal!anomalies!(see! Chow,!2013;!Yano,! 2016!for!a!bi-phasic!pattern!in!semantic!reversal!
anomaly).! On! the! other! hand,! the! P600! effect! was!degraded! for! semantic! reversal! anomaly!but! not! for!
morphosyntactic!violation.!The!main! effect!of! mood!was!not! significant!in!any!of!the!analyses!performed,!
suggesting!that!the!ERP!for!ungrammatical!but!not!grammatical!conditions!decreased!in!amplitude!in!a!sad!
mood.! !
The!presence!of!early!effects!suggests!that!the!activation!process!is!relatively!intact!under!sad!mood.!
This! finding! aligns! well! with! previous! studies! conducted! on!healthy! adults! (Jiménez-Ortega! et! al.,! 2012;!
Pinheiro!et! al.,! 2013).! In! our! experiment,! the! first! noun!and! the! second! phrase! of! the! sentences! were!
identical! between! the! conditions! and,! thus,! semantic! priming! should! not!induce! an! N400/LAN!difference!
between!the!conditions.!In!other!words,!early!negativity!can!only!emerge!from!the!difference!in!the!degree!
of!pre-activation!of!a!verb.!Thus,! a!significant!effect!of! early!negativity!without! an! interaction!with!mood!
indicates!that!the!participants!actively!predicted! an!upcoming!verb!based!on! the!information! available! in!
the!first!phrase!and!then!quickly!accessed!the!relevant!information!when!such!an!expectation!was!violated,!
irrespective!of!their!mood.!
In!contrast,!the!P600!effect!interacted!with!the!mood!of!the!participants.!Importantly,!this!interaction!
was!observed!for!semantic!reversal!anomaly,!but!not!for!case-assignment!violation.!The!lack!of!mood!effect!
on! the! P600! for! morphosyntactic! anomaly! suggests! that! morphosyntactic! information! is!processed!
successfully!regardless!of!the!participants’!mood.!This!result!was!consistent!with!that!by!van!Berkum!et!al.!
(2013),!but!not!those! by!Vissers!et! al.!(2010)!and!Verhees!et!al.!(2015).!Several!facts!may!account!for!this!
discrepancy.!First,!the!present!study!examined!case-assignment!violation!in!Japanese,!whereas!Vissers!et!al.!
(2010)! and! Verhees! et! al.! (2015)! focused! on! subject-verb! agreement! violation!in! Dutch.! As! noted! in!
Introduction,!it!is!conceivable!that!mood!may!exert!differential!effects!on!the!processing!of!case!versus!that!
of! agreement!information,! as! their! functions! are! different.! However,! this! possibility! is!less! likely! as! van!
Berkum!et!al.!(2013)!did!not! observe!a! mood!effect!on!P600!in! th e! experiment! that! used!a!subject-verb!
agreement!violation.!
Alternatively,!differences!in!the!task!may!be!crucial!for!understanding!the!inconsistency!in!the!results!
between!our!study!and!the!previous!ones.!Vissers!et!al.!(2010;!2013)!and!Van!Berkum!et!al.!(2013)!did!not!
impose! a! secondary! task! on! their! participants!(i.e.! a! reading! task),! whereas! the! participants! in! our!
experiments!performed!grammaticality! judgment!task!after!reading!a!sentence.!Since! the!task!modulates!
the!participants’!processing!style!(cf.!Vissers!et!al.,!2007;!Verhees!et!al.,!2015),!the!difference!in!the!results!
might!be!attributable!to!the!task!difference.!However,!our!task!was!similar!to!that!used! by!Verhees!et!al.!
(2015),!who!observed!a!stronger! mood!×!P600! interaction!when!the!participants!were!asked! to! focus!on!
the! grammaticality! of! the!sentence!instead!of!on!the!physical!feature!of!a!sentence!(i.e.!font).!Thus,! the!
task! cannot! solely! account! for! the! absence! of! mood! ×! P600! interaction! in! the! present! study! or!the!
difference!between!the!results!by!van!Berkum!et!al.!(2013)!and!those!by!Vissers!et!al.!(2010).! !
Another! factor! that! may! account! for! the! discrepancy! concerns! sentence! complexity.! The!target!
!
15!
sentences! used!in!the!present!study!and!van!Berkum!et! al.! (2013)! are!very!simple,! and!morphosyntactic!
anomalies!are!easy!to!detect!(‘The#boy#turn/*turns#…#,!van!Berkum!et!al.,!2013).!These!did!not!require!large!
processing! resources! and,! thus,! even!sad! participants! could! process! them! successfully.! This! enabled! sad!
participants!to!attempt!to!repair!morphosyntactic!violation,!indexed!by!a!syntactic!P600.!On!the!other!hand,!
the! target! sentence! in! the! study! by! Vissers! et! al.! (2010)! was! relatively! complex! because! it! included! a!
relative! clause! (e.g.!Der# dochter# die# over# haar# ouders# spraken,! the! daughter! who! about! her! parents!
talked.PL,!‘The!daughter!who!talked!about!her!parents’).!To!detect!a!subject-verb!agreement!violation,!the!
participants!had!to!temporally!keep!a!head!noun!(‘daughter’)!in!the!working! memory!until!encountering!a!
verb.! After! reading! a! verb,! they! had! to!retrieve! the! head! noun!from! the! working! memory,! and! then!
associate! it! with! the!verb! of!the! relative! clause.! Because! processing! of! relative! clauses! was!reported! to!
induce!an!extra!processing!load!(King!and!Kutas,!1995),!the!participants!likely!consumed!large!resources!to!
successfully! build!syntactic! and! semantic! representation!of! the! sentence!in! Vissers! et! al.’s! (2010)!
experiment.!Accordingly,!after!detecting!morphosyntactic!violation,!the!participants!have!not!had!sufficient!
cognitive!resources! available!to!engage!in!the!repair! process,!which!made!sad!participants!reluctant!to!do!
so.! This! might!explain!a! significant! reduction! in! syntactic! P600! effect! under! sad! mood! in! Vissers! et! al.’s!
(2010)!experiment.!In!other!words,!sentence!complexity!may!modulate!the!extent!to!which!sad!participants!
are!vulnerable!to!their!transient!emotional!state.!However,!identifying!factors!that!may!potentially!explain!
the!differences!in!the!results!between!this!study!and!the!previous!ones!is!beyond!the!scope!of!the!present!
study!and!therefore!awaits!further!investigation.!
As!mentioned!above,!we!detected!a! mood!effect!for!P600!in!response!to!semantic!reversal!anomaly.!
Although! case-assignment! and! semantic! reversal! anomalies! have! often! elicited! superficially! similar! P600!
effects,!the!observation!that!mood!selectively!affects!the!processing!of!semantic!reversal!anomaly!supports!
the! view!that! the! mechanisms! underlying! these! two! types! of! processing! are! different.!First,! the! level! of!
attention!or!arousal!cannot!account!for!this!result.!If!sad!participants!in!our!experiment!had!not!focused!on!
the!syntactic!and/or!semantic!information,! the!effect!for! semantic!reversal!anomaly!would!not!have!been!
observed.!Because!a!larger!negativity!for!semantic!reversal!anomaly!was!not!modulated!by!mood,!it!follows!
that!sad! participants! were! sufficiently! concentrated! on! perceiving!syntactic! and! semantic! information.!
Furthermore,!the!level!of!arousal!did!not!differ!between!the!three!groups.! !
We! propose! that! the! multi-stream! model! can! account! for! this! selective! effect! of! mood! on! the!
processing!of!semantic!reversal!anomaly.!As!discussed!in!Introduction,!individuals!under!sad!mood!tend!to!
rely! on! analytic! processing! rather! than!heuristic-based! processing! strategy.! The! multi-stream! model!
accounts!for!semantic!P600!effect!by! suggesting!that! semantic!P600! is!elicited!by! a! conflict!between!the!
output! from! the! analytic! (morpho)syntax-based! and! that! from! heuristic-based!processing! streams.! If! sad!
people!were!less!likely!to!engage!in!heuristic!processing,!the!conflict!between!these!two!outputs!should!be!
!
16!
severe.!Accordingly,!sad!people!did!not!show!a!semantic!P600!for!semantic!reversal!anomaly.! 4!However,!
they!were!still!able!to!detect!a!case-assignment!violation!because!they!engaged!in!analytic!(morpho)syntax-
based!processing.!This!explains!why!a!syntactic!P600!effect!was!observed!for!case-assignment!violation.!On!
the!other!hand,!happy!participants! are! considered!to!perform! both! analytic!and!heuristic! processing!and!
thus! successfully! detect! both! types! of! anomalies.! Accordingly,! both! syntactic! and! semantic! P600!effects!
were!observed!for!these!participants.! !
Finally,! we! found! little! impact! of! individual! levels! of! chronic! depression! on! ERP! anomaly! effects.!
However,! this! does! not! necessarily! imply! that! individual! depression!levels! are!not! related! to!sentence!
comprehension.! Instead,! this! lack! of! effect! may! be! due! to! the! fact! that! the! depression! scores! of! all!
participants!in!our!study!were!within!a!normal!range!(i.e.!2049).! !
!
4. Conclusion!
We! demonstrate!that!while! transient! emotional! state! affects! the! processing! of! semantic! reversal!
anomaly,!it!has!little!impact!on!the!processing!of!case-assignment!violation.!This!selective!mood!effect!can!
be! explained! using! the! multi-stream! processing! framework.! However,! because! the! mood! effect! on! P600!
was!not!consistent!across!the!studies,!further! investigation!is!necessary!to!clarify!which!factors!contribute!
to!this!discrepancy.! !
!
Acknowledgements!This!study!was!supported!by!JSPS!KAKENHI!(#15H02603,!PI:!Masatoshi!Koizumi)!and!a!
Grant-in-Aid!for!JSPS!Research!Fellows!(#13J04854,!PI:!Masataka!Yano).!We!would!like!to!thank!an!
anonymous!reviewer!and!Kyoshiro!Sasaki!for!their!valuable!comments.!
!
Funding!This!study!was!supported!by!JSPS!KAKENHI!(#15H02603,!PI:!Masatoshi!Koizumi)!and!a!Grant-in-Aid!
for!JSPS!Research!Fellows!(#13J04854,!PI:!Masataka!Yano).!
!
Compliance!with!Ethical!Standards!
Ethical! Standard!This! study! was! approved! by! the! Ethics! Committee! of! the! Graduate! School! of! Arts! and!
Letters,! Tohoku! University.! Written! informed! consent! was! obtained! from! all! participants! prior! to! the!
4!Vissers!et!al.!(2013)!and!Verhees!et!al.!(2015)!made!a!similar!suggestion!in!terms!of!heuristic!processing.!
For!example,!Vissers!et! a l.!(2 013:! 1036)! proposed! that! “the# presence# of# a# clear# P600# effect# in# th e# happy#
mood#condition#reflects#the#use#of#heuristics,#while#the#absence#of#the#P600#effect#in#the#sad#mood#condition#
reflects# that# sad# participants# do# not# use# heuristics# while# reading# semantically# implausible# sentences.”!
However,! our! claim! differs! from! that! of! Vissers! et! al.! (2013)! in! two! aspects.! First,! Vissers! et! al.! (2013)!
argued!that!the!mood!affects!the!processing!of!syntactic!and!semantic!reversal!anomalies!in!a!similar!way,!
as! they! did! not! detect! a! three-way! interaction! of! mood! (happy! vs.! sad:! a! between-participant! factor)! ×!
anomaly! type! (syntactic! vs.! semantic:! a! between-participant! factor)! ×! condition! (grammatical! vs.!
ungrammatical:!a!within-participant!factor)!when!combining!their!data!and!those!by!Vissers!et!al.’s!(2010).!
However,! the! absence! of! a! significant! interaction! with! between-participant! factors! does! not! necessarily!
imply!that!syntactic!and!semantic! processing! are!similarly!affected!by!mood.! Second,! Vissers! et!al.!(2013)!
have!posited!heuristic!processing!based!on!syntactic!expectancy,!unlike!the!multi-stream!model.! !
!
17!
experiment.!
!
Informed!Consent!Written!informed!consent!was!obtained!from!all!participants!prior!to!the!experiment.!
!
References!
Bates,! D.,! Maechler,! M.,! Bolker,! B.,! &! Walker,! S.! (2015)!Fitting! linear! mixed-effects! models! using! lme4.!
Journal!of!Statistical!Software,!67(1),!1-48.! !
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky,! I.! and! Schlesewsky,! M.! (2008)! An! alternative! perspective! on! “semantic! P600”!
effects!in!language!comprehension.!Brain#Research#Reviews,#59,!5573.!
Brouwer,!H.,!Crocker,!M.!W.,!Venhuizen,!N.!J.,!and!Hoeks,!J.!C.!J.!(2016)!A!neurocomputational!model!of!the!
N400!and!the!P600!in!language!processing,!Cognitive#Science.!DOI:!10.1111/cogs.12461!
Brouwer,! H.,! Fitz,! H.! and! Hoeks,! J.! C.! J.! (2012)! Getting! real! about! semantic! illusions:! Rethinking! the!
functional!role!of!the!P600!in!language!comprehension.!Brain#Research,!1446,!127143.!
Chow,! W.-Y.! (2013)! The! temporal! dimension! of! linguistic! prediction.! Doctoral# Dissertation,! University! of!
Maryland,!College!Park.!
Chow,! W.-Y.! and! Phillips,! C.! (2013)! No! semantic! illusions! in! the! “Semantic! P600”! phenomenon:! ERP!
evidence!from!Mandarin!Chinese.!Brain#Research,!1506,!7693.!
Chwilla,!D.!J.,!Virgillito,!D.,!and!Vissers,!C.!T.!W.!M.!(2011)!The!relationship!of!language!and!emotion:!N400!
support!for!an!embodied! view!of!language!comprehension.!Journal#of#Cognitive#Neuroscience,!39(9),!
24002414.!
Federmeier,!K.!D.,!Kirson,!D.!A.,!Moreno,!E.!M.,!and!Kutas,!M.!(2001)!Effects!of!transient,!mild!mood!states!
on! semantic! memory! organization! and! use:! An! event-related! potential! investigation! in! humans.!
Neuroscience#Letters,!305,!149152.!
Fredrickson,!B.!L.,!and!Branigan,!C.!(2005).!Positive!emotions!broaden!the!scope!of!attention!and!thought-
action!repertoires.!Cognition#and#Emotion,!19(3),!313332.!
Friederici,!A.!D.,!Hahne,!A.,!and!Mecklinger,!A.!(1996)!Temporal!structure!of!syntactic!parsing:!Early!and!late!
event-related!potential!effects.!Journal#of#Experimental#Psychology:#Learning,#Memory,#and#Cognition,!
22(5),!12191248.!
Gasper,!K.,!and!Clore,!G.!L.!(2002)!Attending!to!the!big!picture:!mood!and!global!versus!local!processing!of!
visual!information.!Psychological#Science,!13(1),!3440.!
Gouvea,!A.!C.,!Phillips,!C.,!Kazanina,!N.,!and!Poeppel,!D.!(2010)!The!linguistic!processes!underlying!the!P600.!
Language#and#Cognitive#Processes,!25(2),!149188.!
Gunter,!T.!C.,! Stowe!L.!A.,! and! Mulder!G.!(1997)! When! syntax!meets!semantics.!Psychophysiology,!34(6),!
660676.!
Hoeks,!J.!C.!J.,!Stowe,!L.!A.,!and!Doedens,!G.!(2004)!Seeing!words!in!context:!The!interaction!of!lexical!and!
sentence!level!information!during!reading.!Cognitive#Brain#Research,!19(1),!5973.!
!
18!
Isen,! A.! M.! (2001)! An! influence! of! positive! affect! on! decision! making! in! complex! situations:! Theoretical!
issues!with!practical!implications.!Journal#of#Consumer!Psychology,!11(2),!7585.!
Jasper,! H.! H.! (1958)! The! ten-twenty! electrode! system! of! the! international! federation.!
Electroencephalography#and#Clinical#Neurophysiology,#10,!371375.!
Jiménez-Ortega,!L.,!Martín-Loeches,!M.,! Casado,!P.,!Sel,!A.,!Fondevila,!S.,!de!Tejada,!P.!H.,!Schacht,!A.,!and!
Sommer,! W.! (2012)! How! the! emotional! content! of! discourse! affects! language! comprehension.! PLoS#
ONE#7(3):e33718.! !
Kim,! A.,! and! Osterhout,! L.! (2005)! The! independence! of! combinatory! semantic! processing:!Evidence! from!
event-related!potentials.!Journal#of#Memory#and#Language,!52(2),!205225.!
King,!J.!W.! and!Kutas,!M.! (1995)!Who!did!what! and!when?!Using!word-! and! clause-level!ERPs!to!monitor!
working!memory!usage!in!reading.!Journal#of#Cognitive#Neuroscience,!7(3),!376395.!
Kolk,! H.! H.,! Chwilla,! D.! J.,! van!Herten,! M.,! and! Oor,! P.! J.! (2003)! Structure! and! limited! capacity! in! verbal!
working!memory:!A!study!with!event!related!potentials.!Brain#and#Language,!85(1),!136.!
Kuperberg,! G.! R.! (2007)! Neural! mechanisms! of! language! comprehension:! Challenges! to! syntax.! Brain#
Research,#1146(1),!2349.!
Kuperberg,!G.!R.,!Caplan,!D.,!Sitnikova,!T.,!Eddy,!M.,!and!Holcomb,!P.!(2006)!Neural!correlates!of!processing!
syntactic,!semantic!and!thematic!relationships!in!sentences.!Language#and#Cognitive#Processes,!21(5),!
489530.!
Kuperberg,! G.! R.,! Kreher,! D.! A.,! Goff,! D.,! McGuire,! P.! K.,! and! David,! A.! S.! (2006b)! Building! up! linguistic!
context!in!Schizophrenia:!Evidence!from!self-paced!reading.!Neurophysiology,!20(4),!442452.! !
Kuperberg,!G.! R.,!Kreher,!D.!A.,!Sitnikova,!T.,!Caplan,!D.!N.,!and!Holcomb,!P.!J.!(2007)!The!role! of!animacy!
and! thematic! relationships! in! processing! active! English! sentences:! Evidence! from! event-related!
potentials.!Brain#and#Language,!100(3),!223237.!
Kuperberg,! G.! R.,! Sitnikova,! T.,! Caplan,! D.,! and! Holcomb,! P.! J.! (2003).! Electrophysiological! distinctions! in!
processing!conceptual!relationships!within!simple!sentences.!Cognitive#Brain#Research,!17(1),!117129.!
Kuperberg,! G.! R.,! Sitnikova,! T.,! Goff,! D.,! and! Holcomb,! P.! J.! (2006a)! Making! sense! of! sentences! in!
Schizophrenia:! Electrophysiological! evidence! for! abnormal! interactions! between! semantic! and!
syntactic!processing.!Journal#of#Abnormal#Psychology,!115(2),!251265.! !
Kutas,! M.! and! Hillyard,! S.! A.! (1980)! Reading! senseless! sentences:! Brain! potentials! reflect! semantic!
incongruity.!Science,!207(4427),!203205.!
Kuznetsova,!A.!Brockhoff,!P.!B.,!&!R.!H.!B.,!Christensen!(2015)!lmerTest:!Tests!in!linear!mixed!effects!models.!
R!package!version!2.0-32.! ! https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTest!
Lau,!E.!F.,!Stroud,!C.,! Plesch,! S.,! and! Phillip s,! C.! (2006)! The! role! of! structural! p rediction! in! rapid! syntactic!
analysis.!Brain#and#Language,!98(1),!7488.!!
Lee,! C.! W.,! Kim,! S.! H.,! Shim,! M.,! Ryu,! V.,! Ha,! R.! Y.,! Lee,! S.! J.! and! Cho,! H-S.! (2016)! P600! alternation! of!
syntactic! language! processing! in! patients! with! bipolar! mania:! Comparison! to! schizophrenia! patients!
!
19!
and!healthy!subjects.!Journal#of#Affective#Disorder,!201(1),!101111.!
Molinaro,!N.,!Barber,!H.!A.,!and!Carreiras,!M.!(2011a)!Grammatical!agreement!processing!in! reading:!ERP!
findings!and!future!directions.!Cortex,!47(8),!908930.! !
Oishi,! H.,! and! Sakamoto,! T.! (2009)! Immediate! interaction! between! syntactic! and! semantic! outputs:!
evidence!from!event-related!potentials!in!Japanese!sentence!processing.!Paper#presented#at#the#22nd#
Annual#CUNY#Human#Sentence#Processing#Conference,!Davis,!CA.!
Oldfield,!R.!(1971)!The!assessment!and!analysis!of!handedness:!The!Edinburgh!inventory.!Neuropsychologia,!
9,!812815.!
Osterhout,!L.!and!Mobley,!L.!A.!(1995)!Event-related!brain!potentials!elicited!by!failure!to!agree.!Journal#of#
Memory#and#Language,!34(6),!739773.!
Payne,!B.!R.!and!Federmeier,!K.!D.!(2017)!Pace!yourself:!Intraindividual!variability!in!context!used! revealed!
by!self-paced!event-related!brain!potentials.!Journal#of#Cognitive#Neuroscience,!29(5),!837854.!
Payne,!B.!R.,!Stites,!M.!C.,!and!Federmeier,!K.!D.!(2016)!Out!of!the!corner!of!my!eye:!Foveal!semantic!load!
modulates! parafoveal! processing! in! reading.! Journal# of# Experimental# Psychology:# Human# Perception#
and#Performance,!42(11),!19831857.!
Payne,!B.,!R.,!Lee,!C-L.,!and!Federmeier,!K.!D.!(2015)!Revisiting!the!incremental!effects! of!context!on!word!
processing:!Evidence!from!single-word!event-related!brain!potentials.!Psychophysiology,!52(11),!1456
1469.!
Pinheiro,! A.! P.,! del! Re,! E.,! Nestor,! P.! G.,! McCarley,! R.! W.,! Gonçalves,! O.! F.,! and! Niznikiewicz,! M.! (2013)!
Interactions!between!mood!and!the!structure!of!semantic!memory:!Event-related!potentials!evidence.!
Social#Cognitive#and#Affective#Neuroscience,!8(5),!579594.! !
!Preacher,!K.!J.,!Curran,!P.!J.,!and!Bauer,!D.!J.!(2006)!Computational!tools!for!probing!interaction!effects!in!
multiple!linear!regression,!multilevel!modelling,!and! latent!curve!analysis.! Journal#of# Educational#and#
Behavioral#Statistics,!31,!437448.!
R!Core!Team! (2016)!R:! A!language!and! environment!for! statistical!computing.! R!Foundation!for!Statistical!
Computing,!Vienna,!Austria.!
Ruchsow,!M.,!Groen,!G.,!Spitzer,!M.,!Hermle,! L.,! Buchheim,! A.,! and! Kiefer,! M.! (2008)! Electrophysiological!
evidence! fro! a! syntactic! but! not! a! semantic! deficit! in! patients! with! major! depression.! Journal# of#
Psychophysiology,!22(3),!121129.! !
Sassenhagen,!J.!and!Bornkessel-Schlesewsky! (2015)! The! P600!as!a!correlate!of! ventral! attention!network!
reorientation.!Cortex,!66,!320.! !
Sassenhagen,!J.,!Schlesewsky,!M.,!and!Bornkessel-Schlesewsky,!I.!(2014)!The!P600-as-P3!hypothesis!revised:!
Single-trial! analyses! reveal! that! the! late! EEG! positivity! following! linguistically! deviant! material! is!
reaction!time!aligned.!Brain#and#Language,!137,!2939.!!!
Schwarz,! N.! (2002)! Situated! cognition! and! the! wisdom! of! feelings:! cognitive! tuning,!In! Barrett,! L.! F.! and!
Salovey,!P.!(eds),!144166,!The#Wisdom#in#Feelings,!New!York:!Guilford!Press.!
!
20!
Sitnikova,! T.,! Salisbury,! D.! F.,! Kuperberg,! G.,! and! Holcomb,! P.! I.! (2002).! Electrophysiological! insights! into!
language!processing!in!schizophrenia.!Psychophysiology,!39,!851860.!
Stites,! M.! C.,! Payne,! B.! R.,! and! Federmeier,! K.! D.! (2017)! Getting! ahead! of! yourself:! Parafoveal! word!
expectancy!modulates!N400!during!sentence!reading.!Cognitive,#Affective#and!Behavioral#Neuroscience,!
17(3),!475490.!
Van!Berkum,!J.!J.!A.,!de!Goede,!D.,!van!Alphen,!P.!M.,!Mulder,!E.!R.,!and!Kerstholt,!J.!H.!(2013)!How!robust!is!
the!language!architecture?!The!case!of!mood.!Frontiers#in#Psychology,!4,!505.!
Van! Herten,! M.,! Kolk,! H.! H.,!and! Chwilla,! D.! J.! (2005)! An! ERP! study! of! P600! effects! elicited! by! semantic!
anomalies.!Cognitive#Brain#Research,!22(2),!241255.!
Van!Petten,!C.! and! Luka,!B.!J.!(2012)! Prediction!during!language! comprehension:!Benefits,!costs! and! ERP!
components.!International#Journal#of#Psychophysiology,!83(2),!176190.!
Verhees,! M.! W.,! Chwilla,! D.! J.,! and! Vissers,! C.! T.! W.! M.! (2015)! Contributions! of! emotional! state! and!
attention!to!the!processing!of!syntactic!agreement!errors:!evidence!from!P600.!Frontiers#in#Psychology,!
6,!388.!
Vissers,!C.!T.!W.!M.,!Chwilla,!U.!G.,!Egger,!J.!I.!M.,!and!Chwilla,!D.!J.!(2013)!The!interplay!between!mood!and!
language!comprehension:!Evidence!from!P600! to!semantic!reversal!anomalies.! Neuropsychologia,!51,!
10271039.! !
Vissers,! C.! T.! W.! M.,! Virgillito,! D.,! Fitzgerald,! D.,! Speckens,! A.! E.! M.,! Tendolkar,! I.,! van! Oostrom,! I.,! and!
Chwilla,!D.!J.! (2010)!The!influence!of! mood!on!the!processing! of!syntactic!anomalies:! Evidence!from!
P600.!Neuropsychologia,!48(12),!35213531.!
Vissers,!C.!Th.!W.!M.,!Chwilla,!D.!J.,!&!Kolk,!H.!H.!J.!(2007)!The!interplay!of!heuristics!and!parsing!routines!in!
sentence!comprehension:!Evidence!from!ERPs!and!reaction!times.!Biological#Psychology,!75(1),!818.! !
Yano,! M.! (2016)! Temporal! dynamics! of! syntactic! and! semantic! prediction,! Doctoral# dissertation,# Kyushu!
University.! !
Yano,!M.!and!Sakamoto,!T.!(2016)!The!interaction!of!morphosyntactic!and!semantic!processing!in!Japanese!
sentence!comprehension:!Evidence!from!event-related!brain!potentials,!Gengo#Kenkyu,!149,!4359.!
Yano,! M.,! Tateyama,! Y.,! and! Sakamoto,! T.! (2014)! Processing! of! Japanese! cleft! constructions! in! context:!
Evidence!from!event-related!brain!potentials,!Journal#of#Psycholinguistic#Research,!43(3),!277286.!
Zung!W.!W.!K.!(1965)!A!self-rating!depression!scale.!Archives#of#General#Psychiatry,!12,!6370.!
!
21!
Supplementary!materials!
Summary!of!the!final!models!in!LAN,!N400,!and!early/late!P600!time!windows!
!
1. Final!Model!=!lmer!(EEG!~!MOOD!*!VERB!*!CASE!+!(1!+!MOOD!*!VERB!+!CASE!|!subj)!+!(1!+!MOOD!*!
VERB!+!CASE!|!set)!+!(1|ch)!+!Item!Order,!data!=!data)!
!
#!Comparison!between!(1a)!and!(1b)!and!between!(2a)!and!(2b)!
2. Final!Model!=!lmer!(EEG!~! MOOD!*!CASE! +!(1!+!MOOD!*!CASE! |!subj)! +!(1!+! MOOD!*!CASE! |!set)!+!
(1|ch)!+!Item!Order,!data!=!data)!
!
... The dependent variables included mean amplitudes calculated for each participant, trial, and electrode. 6 Although P600 effects were expected to appear in response to morphosyntactic violations in the time windows of 700-900 ms on the basis of previous studies in Japanese (Mueller, Hirotani, & Friederici, 2007;Nashiwa, Nakao, & Miyatani, 2007;Yano, 2018;Yano & Sakamoto, 2016;Yano, Suzuki, & Koizumi, 2018), the mean amplitudes of 300-500 ms and 500-700 ms were also analyzed to examine at which time-windows the ERPs started to change over the course of the experiment. The division of a P600 time-window into early and late time-windows (i.e., early P600 time-window of 500-700 ms and late P600 time-window of 700-900 ms) is motivated by previous studies showing that different types of sentences show a P600 effect with different peak latencies and topographical distributions (Barber & Carreiras, 2005;Carreiras, Salillas, & Barber, 2004;Hagoort & Brown, 2000;Kaan & Swaab, 2003b, 2003aMolinaro, Barber, & Carreiras, 2011, see also footenote 2). ...
Article
Full-text available
The present study conducted two event-related potential experiments to investigate whether readers adapt their expectations to morphosyntactically (Experiment 1) or semantically (Experiment 2) anomalous sentences when they are repeatedly exposed to them. To address this issue, we experimentally manipulated the probability of occurrence of grammatical sentences and syntactically and semantically anomalous sentences through experiments. For the low probability block, anomalous sentences were presented less frequently than grammatical sentences (with a ratio of 1 to 4), while they were presented as frequently as grammatical sentences in the equal probability block. Experiment 1 revealed a smaller P600 effect for morphosyntactic violations in the equal probability block than in the low probability block. Linear mixed-effect models were used to examine how the size of the P600 effect changed as the experiment went along. The results showed that the smaller P600 effect of the equal probability block resulted from an amplitude's decline in morphosyntactically violated sentences over the course of the experiment, suggesting an adaptation to morphosyntactic violations. In Experiment 2, semantically anomalous sentences elicited a larger N400 effect than their semantically natural counterparts regardless of probability manipulation. Little evidence was found in favor of adaptation to semantic violations in that the processing cost associated with the N400 did not decrease over the course of the experiment. Therefore, these results demonstrated a dynamic aspect of language-processing system. We will discuss why the language-processing system shows a selective adaptation to morphosyntactic violations. 2
... However, since Japanese is a typical prodrop language, word sequences consisting of a noun with a case particle and a verb, such as kenka-o uru (pick a fight), constitute complete Japanese sentences, even if there is no pronoun (see Example 1). Hence, their processing likely involves mechanisms underlying normal sentence comprehension (Yano, Suzuki, and Koizumi 2018). Thus, our hypothesis follows theories of sentence comprehension. ...
Article
Full-text available
The present study reported an experiment examining whether both native speakers (NSs) and non-native speakers (NNSs) give formulaic sequences (FSs) priority over novel phrases in processing, as the dual route model has postulated. In this experiment, NSs and NNSs were asked to read Japanese versions of semi-transparent restricted collocations (e.g., kenka-o uru ‘pick a fight (acc)’), novel phrases (e.g., tomato-o uru ‘sell tomatoes (acc)’), and violated phrases (e.g., kenka-o sagasu ‘find out a fight (acc)’); and they judged the naturalness of these sequences. Participants’ reaction times were measured, as well as their cortical activation. The results revealed that, for the NSs, collocations required shorter reaction times and elicited less cortical activation than the novel stimuli. For NNSs, collocations similarly required shorter reaction times, but they elicited greater cortical activation than novel phrases. These results support the dual route model, both for NSs and NNSs.
Article
In this study, we controlled the relationship between participants and stimuli to reduce individual differences in the evoked affective states and examined whether the affective state impacts on N400 and P600 amplitudes of the ERP. Students who like dogs and had ones were presented films related to dogs. Half of 24 participants watched positive films (a positive group) and the remaining half watched negative ones (a negative group). After watching, a Japanese sentence-judgment task was completed by the participants. N400 to semantic violation was confirmed for both groups, and its amplitude was significantly larger for the positive group. In contrast, P600 to syntactic violation was confirmed only for the positive group. These results indicate that the affective states influenced on the sentence processing and it is possible to clearly confirm the influence of the affective states on sentence processing by controlling individual differences in the evoked affective states.
Article
Full-text available
One of the frequent questions by users of the mixed model function lmer of the lme4 package has been: How can I get p values for the F and t tests for objects returned by lmer? The lmerTest package extends the 'lmerMod' class of the lme4 package, by overloading the anova and summary functions by providing p values for tests for fixed effects. We have implemented the Satterthwaite's method for approximating degrees of freedom for the t and F tests. We have also implemented the construction of Type I - III ANOVA tables. Furthermore, one may also obtain the summary as well as the anova table using the Kenward-Roger approximation for denominator degrees of freedom (based on the KRmodcomp function from the pbkrtest package). Some other convenient mixed model analysis tools such as a step method, that performs backward elimination of nonsignificant effects - both random and fixed, calculation of population means and multiple comparison tests together with plot facilities are provided by the package as well.
Article
Full-text available
Ten years ago, researchers using event-related brain potentials (ERPs) to study language comprehension were puzzled by what looked like a Semantic Illusion: Semantically anomalous, but structurally well-formed sentences did not affect the N400 component---traditionally taken to reflect semantic integration---but instead produced a P600-effect, which is generally linked to syntactic processing. This finding led to a considerable amount of debate, and a number of complex processing models have been proposed as an explanation. What these models have in common is that they postulate two or more separate processing streams, in order to reconcile the Semantic Illusion and other semantically induced P600-effects with the traditional interpretations of the N400 and the P600. Recently, however, these multi-stream models have been called into question, and a simpler single-stream model has been proposed. According to this alternative model, the N400 component reflects the retrieval of word meaning from semantic memory, and the P600 component indexes the integration of this meaning into the unfolding utterance interpretation. In the present paper, we provide support for this 'Retrieval–Integration' account by instantiating it as a neurocomputational model. This neurocomputational model is the first to successfully simulate N400 and P600 amplitude in language comprehension, and simulations with this model provide a proof of concept of the single-stream Retrieval–Integration account of semantically-induced patterns of N400 and P600 modulations.
Thesis
This thesis explores how predictions about upcoming language inputs are computed during real-time language comprehension. Previous research has demonstrated humans’ ability to use rich contextual information to compute linguistic prediction during real-time language comprehension, and it has been widely assumed that contextual information can impact linguistic prediction as soon as it arises in the input. This thesis questions this key assumption and explores how linguistic predictions develop in real-time. I provide event-related potential (ERP) and reading eye-movement (EM) evidence from studies in Mandarin Chinese and English that even prominent and unambiguous information about preverbal arguments’ structural roles cannot immediately impact comprehenders’ verb prediction. I demonstrate that the N400, an ERP response that is modulated by a word’s predictability, becomes sensitive to argument role-reversals only when the time interval for prediction is widened. Further, I provide initial evidence that different sources of contextual information, namely, information about preverbal arguments’ lexical identity vs. their structural roles, may impact linguistic prediction on different time scales. I put forth a research framework that aims to characterize the mental computations underlying linguistic prediction along a temporal dimension.
Article
Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) have revealed multiple mechanisms by which contextual constraints impact language processing. At the same time, little work has examined the trial-to-trial dynamics of context use in the brain. In the current study, we probed intraindividual variability in behavioral and neural indices of context processing during reading. In a concurrent self-paced reading and ERP paradigm, participants read sentences that were either strongly or weakly constraining completed with an expected or unexpected target word. Our findings revealed substantial within-subject variability in behavioral and neural responses to contextual constraints. First, context-based amplitude reductions of the N400, a component linked to semantic memory access, were largest among trials eliciting the slowest RTs. Second, the RT distribution of unexpected words in strongly constraining contexts was positively skewed, reflecting an increased proportion of very slow RTs to trials that violated semantic predictions. Among those prediction-violating trials eliciting faster RTs, a late sustained anterior positivity was observed. However, among trials producing the differentially slowed RTs to prediction violations, we observed a markedly earlier effect of constraint in the form of an anterior N2, a component linked to conflict resolution and the cognitive control of behavior. The current study provides the first neurophysiological evidence for the direct role of cognitive control functions in the volitional control of reading. Collectively, our findings suggest that context use varies substantially within individual participants and that coregistering behavioral and neural indices of online sentence processing offers a window into these single-item dynamics.
Article
An important question in the reading literature regards the nature of the semantic information readers can extract from the parafovea (i.e., the next word in a sentence). Recent eye-tracking findings have found a semantic parafoveal preview benefit under many circumstances, and findings from event-related brain potentials (ERPs) also suggest that readers can at least detect semantic anomalies parafoveally (Barber, Van der Meij, & Kutas, Psychophysiology, 50(1), 48–59, 2013). We use ERPs to ask whether fine-grained aspects of semantic expectancy can affect the N400 elicited by a word appearing in the parafovea. In an RSVP-with-flankers paradigm, sentences were presented word by word, flanked 2° bilaterally by the previous and upcoming words. Stimuli consisted of high constraint sentences that were identical up to the target word, which could be expected, unexpected but plausible, or anomalous, as well as low constraint sentences that were always completed with the most expected ending. Findings revealed an N400 effect to the target word when it appeared in the parafovea, which was graded with respect to the target’s expectancy and congruency within the sentence context. Furthermore, when targets appeared at central fixation, this graded congruency effect was mitigated, suggesting that the semantic information gleaned from parafoveal vision functionally changes the semantic processing of those words when foveated.
Thesis
This dissertation reports on a study that examined the temporal dynamics and adaptive nature of syntactic and semantic prediction during Japanese sentence comprehension using event-related brain potentials. Two types of sentences, containing informational conflicts either between semantic and morphosyntactic information or between semantic information, were used. The former type involved argument role-reversal, as in the window closes someone, in which the subject is semantically plausible as a THEME but syntactic information signals it as an AGENT. The latter type involved an aspectually coerced sentence, such as For ten minutes the dog jumped. The dissertation provides empirical evidence that structural and aspectual expectation develop as a function of time, even when available information does not change. Structural and aspectual mismatches modulate early effects (i.e. approximately 300–500 ms post-onset), such as left anterior negativity and anterior negativity, only when the time available for predictive computation is sufficient. By contrast, late effects, such as P600 and late anterior negativity are insensitive to the temporal predictability of structural and aspectual information, and may reflect later processes, such as structural and aspectual repair or revision processes. Finally, I discuss the adaptive nature of predictive processing on the basis of the finding that the expectation-related early anterior negativity gradually attenuated in syntactically complex sentences, but no in syntactically simpler sentences.