Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

Dear Author,

Please, note that changes made to the HTML content will be added to the article before publication, but are not reflected in this PDF.

Note also that this file should not be used for submitting corrections.

Our reference: NSL 30962

P-authorquery-v9

AUTHOR QUERY FORM

Journal: NSL Please e-mail or fax your responses and any corrections to:

Journal: NSL

Please e-mail or fax your responses and any corrections to:

E-mail: corrections.essd@elsevier.thomsondigital.com

Article Number: 30962

Fax: +353 6170 9272

Dear Author,

Please check your proof carefully and mark all corrections at the appropriate place in the proof (e.g., by using on-screen annotation in the PDF file) or compile them in a separate list. Note: if you opt to annotate the file with software other than Adobe Reader then please also highlight the appropriate place in the PDF file. To ensure fast publication of your paper please return your corrections within 48 hours.

For correction or revision of any artwork, please consult http://www.elsevier.com/artworkinstructions .

Any queries or remarks that have arisen during the processing of your manuscript are listed below and highlighted by flags in the proof. Click on the ‘ Q ’ link to go to the location in the proof.

Location in

Query / Remark: click on the Q link to go Please insert your reply or correction at the corresponding line in the proof

article

Q1

Please confirm that given names and surnames have been identified correctly. Please check the presentation of affiliation "a" and the country name for affiliation "b", and correct if necessary. This sentence has been reworded for clarity. Please check that the meaning is still correct and amend if necessary. Please check the hierarchy of the section headings. Please update Ref. [27].

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q5

Please check this box or indicate your approval if you have no corrections to make to the PDF file

Please check this box or indicate your approval if you have no corrections to make to
 

Thank you for your assistance.

G Model

NSL 30962 1–5

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Neuroscience Letters xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

ARTICLE IN PRE SS Neuroscience Letters xxx (2014) xxx–xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Neuroscience

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Neuroscience Letters

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/neulet

Letters journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/neulet 1 2 Short communication Early processing of auditory lexical

1

2

Short communication

Early processing of auditory lexical predictions revealed by ERPs

Q1 Martijn Baart a,∗ , Arthur G. Samuel a,b,c 3 4 a BCBL Basque Center
Q1
Martijn Baart a,∗ , Arthur G. Samuel a,b,c
3
4
a BCBL Basque Center on Cognition, Brain and Language, Paseo Mikeletegi 69, 2nd floor, 20009 Donostia–San Sebastián, Spain
Q2
5
b IKERBASQUE, Basque Foundation for Science, Spain
6
c Stony Brook University, Department of Psychology, Stony Brook, NY, USA
7
highlights
8
9
10
• Listeners heard (pseudo-) words in which the third syllable determined lexical status.
11
• We measured ERPs that were time-locked to third syllable onset.
Q3
12
• Items were either
naturally timed or delayed third syllable.
13
Across conditions, words yielded more positive ERPs than pseudo-words at 200 ms.
14
article info
abstract
28
15
16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

Article history:

Received 3 September 2014

Received in revised form 6 November 2014

Accepted 26 November 2014

Available online xxx

Keywords:

Speech perception

N200 effect

Early lexicality effects

Robust lexical effects

Auditory lexical processing starts within 200 ms after onset of the critical stimulus. Here, we used elec- troencephalography (EEG) to investigate whether (1) the so-called N200 effect can be triggered by single-item lexical context, and (2) such effects are robust against temporal violations of the signal. We presented items in which lexical status (i.e., is the stimulus a word or a pseudoword?) was determined at third syllable onset. The critical syllable could be naturally timed or delayed (by 440 or 800 ms). Across all conditions, we observed an effect of lexicality that started 200 ms after third syllable onset (i.e., an N200 effect in naturally timed items and a similar effect superimposed on the P2 for the delayed items). The results indicate that early lexical processes are robust against violations of temporal coherence. © 2014 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

coherence. © 2014 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 1. Introduction [e.g . ,7–9] , there is
coherence. © 2014 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 1. Introduction [e.g . ,7–9] , there is

1. Introduction

[e.g.,7–9], there is evidence that functionally differentiates the two [5,6], with the N200 effect being related to lexical selection, and the N400 effect to semantic integration [6]. Consistent with the time-frame of the N200 effect, oddball paradigms in which repetitions of a standard stimulus are occa- sionally followed by a deviant, have revealed that the mismatch negativity-response [i.e., MMN, [10]] generated by the deviant is modulated by lexical properties of the signal [e.g.,11–13]. For instance, van Linden et al. [13] repeatedly presented listeners with a stimulus in which the final consonant was replaced by an ambiguous sound in between ‘t ’ and ‘ p ’ (i.e., ‘?’ in ‘vloo?’ or ‘hoo?’) and investigated the MMN generated by an occasional presenta- tion of a canonical ‘t ’ sound (the deviant) embedded in ‘vloot’ or ‘hoot’, respectively. In line with Ganong [14], van Linden et al. [13] observed that the lexicon perceptually changed the ‘?’ in ‘vloo?’ to a ‘ t ’ (‘vloot’ is Dutch for ‘fleet’, ‘vloop’ is a non-word), and the ‘?’ in ‘hoo?’ to a ‘p ’ (‘hoop’ means ‘hope’, ‘hoot’ is a non-word). The authors observed a smaller MMN when ‘vloo?’ was followed by ‘vloot’ than when ‘hoo?’ was followed by ‘hoot. 63 One way to interpret this result is that the standards had gener- ated predictions about the phonological identity of the subsequent

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

64

65

Q4 Despite the fact that speech input is variable, complex, and

often degraded, humans rapidly decode the signal into a mean-

ingful linguistic percept. Initial processing of different features of

the speech signal (e.g., phonological, lexical, and semantic proper-

ties) takes place within 200 ms after onset of the stimulus [e.g.,1–4].

For instance, event-related potentials (ERPs) within 150–250 ms

after onset of an incongruent target-word such as “maze” embed-

ded in the sentence “the painter colored the details with a small

maze”, are more negative than for congruent target-words such

as “paint brush”. This so-called N200 effect has been argued to

reflect a selection process during which initial phonological assess-

ment of the stimuli interacts with predictive information derived

from the semantic/syntactic context [5,6]. Even though the N200

effect sometimes has been considered to be a part of the later audi-

tory N400 effect that is triggered by similar stimulus manipulations

that is trig gered by simil ar stimulus manipulations ∗ Corresponding author. T el.: +34 943

Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 943 309 300x228. E-mail address: m.baart@bcbl.eu (M. Baart).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2014.11.044

0304-3940/© 2014 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

G Model

NSL 30962 1–5

ARTICLE IN PRESS

2

M. Baart, A.G. Samuel / Neuroscience Letters xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

66 sound, and that the MMN increased whenever such a prediction

67 was violated. According to this view, the prediction about the

68 upcoming sound that is generated by repeated presentations of

69 ‘?’ that is disambiguated toward p’, would be violated upon hear-

70 ing ‘t ’ (as one expects to hear the same ‘p ’-like sound), generating

71 an MMN, assuming that the MMN reflects a violation of a built-up

72 memory trace in echoic memory [15]. However, the standard sound

73 could also have generated a lexical prediction about the upcoming

74 sound. Since the ‘hoot’ deviant was the only pseudoword in the set,

75 its larger MMN may therefore be related to the fact that the lis-

76 tener had expected to hear a lexically valid item, but instead heard

77 a pseudoword.

78 There is accumulating evidence favoring such a predictive cod-

79 ing account on a single item level [e.g.,16], and the brain indeed

80 responds differently to words and pseudowords in the time-

81 window of the N200 effect when measured from the point where

82 lexical status in the item is determined [1]. Here, we sought to

83 determine whether the N200 effect can be triggered by lexical pre-

84 dictions generated within the context of a single word (as opposed

85 to a multi-word context) – previous behavioral research on phone-

86 mic restoration [17] and phonetic categorization [18,19] suggests

87 more direct perceptual effects of within-item lexical context than

88 sentential context. We presented Spanish listeners (N = 16) with

89 three-syllable auditory stimuli in which the third syllable deter-

90 mined the lexical status of the item (e.g., ‘lechuga’, meaning

91 ‘lettuce’, versus the pseudoword ‘lechuda’), while measuring ERPs

92 time-locked to the onset of the third syllable. If the N200 effect

93 is sensitive to lexical predictions generated on a single-item level,

94 we should observe a more negative ERP for pseudowords than for

95 words about 200 ms after onset of the third syllable.

The second aim of the study was to determine whether this N200

higher frequency than the item itself. These criteria yielded a set of 6 words: ‘brigada’ (‘brigade’), ‘lechuga’ (‘lettuce’), ‘granuja’ (‘ras- cal’), ‘laguna’ (‘lagoon’), ‘pellejo’ (‘hide/skin), and ‘boleto’ (‘(lottery) ticket’). Next, pseudowords were created by rotating the final sylla- bles (1) without creating new embedded lexical items, (2) such that all final syllables occurred once in a word and once in a pseudoword, and (3) so that the final consonant in the pseudowords never occurred after the first two syllables in any existing Spanish words. The resulting pseudowords were ‘brigaja’, ‘lechuda’, ‘laguga’, ‘gra- nuna’, ‘pelleto’, and ‘bolejo’. The predictability of speech segments is known to modulate early EEG activity [e.g.,23] and was there- fore controlled in our stimuli, with very similar predictability from syllable two to three for words and pseudowords. More precisely, transition probabilities (derived from the CLEARPOND database [24]) for syllables were .037 for words and .003 for pseudowords, p = .21, and transition probabilities for biphones were .051 for words and .036 pseudowords, p = .52. A male native speaker of Spanish recorded the words and a set of 12 pseudowords in which the final consonant was replaced by ‘ch’ or ‘sh’. To control for acoustic properties and co-articulation, all items were created from the ‘ch’ or ‘sh’ items through splicing. For example, auditory ‘da’ from ‘brigada’ was spliced onto ‘briga’ from ‘brigacha’ and ‘lechu’ from ‘lechusha’ to create ‘brigada’ (a real word) and ‘lechuda’ (a pseudoword). All of the naturally-timed stimuli sounded natural, with no audible clicks or irregularities. 150

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

3. Procedure
3. Procedure

Participants were seated in a sound-attenuated, dimly lit, and electrically shielded booth about 80 cm from a computer moni- tor. Stimuli were presented through a regular computer speaker (at 65 dB(A) at ear-level and a 48 kHz sampling rate) placed directly

in
in
at ear-level and a 48 kHz sampling rate) placed directly in 96 97 98 99 100

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

effect was robust against violations in temporal coherence within

the items, and thus, whether lexical predictions survive across time.

We therefore included conditions in which we inserted a 440 or

above the monitor. There were 6 experimental blocks (8 min

800 ms period of silence between the second and third syllables

duration), and each block contained 108 experimental trials. Of these, 54 were lexical items and 54 were non-lexical items (9 pre- sentations of each of the 6 words and 6 pseudowords). In each block, one-third of the items were naturally timed, one-third came from the 440 ms delay condition (the silence in between syllables 2 and 3 was 400, 440 or 480 ms, 1 presentation per item per delay), and one-third were from the 800 ms delay condition (760, 800, or 840 ms). On an additional 18 trials per block (14% of the total of 756 trials), a small white dot appeared on the screen (120 ms in duration) at auditory onset of the third syllable. These trials

were included to keep participants oriented toward

the monitor

(henceforth ‘delay conditions’). These conditions were expected to

generate ERPs with a different morphology than for the naturally

timed items, as the delayed onset of the third syllable should elicit

an N1/P2 complex. Lexical effects may shift in time based on stimu-

complex. Lexical effects may shift in time based on stimu- lus specifications [e.g.,20] and similar effects

lus specifications [e.g.,20] and similar effects can be superimposed

on different ERP components [e.g.,21]. If the lexicality effect can

survive the delay, we should observe more negative activity for

pseudowords than words, but with the lexicality effect at around

200 ms now superimposed on the P2 component.

2. Material and methods

2.1. Participants

Sixteen native Spanish adults (11 females, mean age = 21 years,

S.D. = 1.5) with normal hearing and normal- or corrected-to-normal

vision participated in the experiment in return for payment

( D 10/h). All provided written informed consent. The experiment

was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

2.2. Stimuli

Three-syllable items (with a CVCVCV, CCVCVCV, or CVCCVCV

Three-syllable items (with a CVCVCV, CCVCVCV , or CVCCVCV structure) were selected from the EsPal subtitle

structure) were selected from the EsPal subtitle database [22].

We excluded items that (1) were not (only) nouns, (2) had word

stress on the first or third syllable, (3) were diminutives or had

lexically valid items embedded in them (according the on-line dic-

tionary of the Real Academia Espanola),˜ (4) had a frequency <2

or >15 per million or (5) had a phonological neighbor (defined

by the addition, deletion, or substitution of one letter) with a

addition, deletion , or substitution of one letter) with a 168 (and the speaker above it)

168

(and the speaker above it) and minimize head movement during testing. Participants were instructed to press a button upon detect- ing a dot. Each trial started with a 400 ms fixation cross followed by a 600, 800, or 1000 ms interval before the auditory stimulus was delivered. Onset of the critical third syllable thus ranged from 1240 ms (no delay condition, 600 ms break) to 2280 ms (840 ms delay, 1000 ms break) after the fixation had disappeared. The inter- trial interval between sound offset and fixation onset was 1800 ms. Trials were pseudo-randomly distributed across the six experi- mental blocks. Before the experiment started, participants were instructed about the three delay conditions and completed a 12- trial practice session to acquaint them with the procedures. 179

178

177

176

175

174

173

172

171

170

169

3.1.

EEG recording and analyses

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

The EEG was recorded with a 32-channel BrainAmp system (Brain Products GmbH) at a 500 Hz sampling rate. Twenty-seven Ag/AgCl electrodes were placed in an EasyCap recording cap at positions Fp1, Fp2, F7, F3, Fz, F4, F8, FC5, FC1, FC2, FC6, T7, C3, Cz, C4, T8, CP5, CP1, CP2, CP6, P7, P3, Pz, P4, P8, O1, and O2. An additional electrode at FCz served as ground, and 4 electrodes (2

G Model

NSL 30962 1–5

ARTICLE IN PRESS

M. Baart, A.G. Samuel / Neuroscience Letters xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

3

A.G. Samuel / Neuroscience Letters xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 3 the pseudowords minus words difference wave, (d)
A.G. Samuel / Neuroscience Letters xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 3 the pseudowords minus words difference wave, (d)
A.G. Samuel / Neuroscience Letters xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 3 the pseudowords minus words difference wave, (d)
A.G. Samuel / Neuroscience Letters xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 3 the pseudowords minus words difference wave, (d)

the pseudowords minus words difference wave, (d)

xxx–xxx 3 the pseudowords minus words difference wave, (d) the results of corresponding point-wise ANOVAs, and
xxx–xxx 3 the pseudowords minus words difference wave, (d) the results of corresponding point-wise ANOVAs, and

the results of corresponding point-wise ANOVAs, and (e)

(d) the results of corresponding point-wise ANOVAs, and (e) Fig. 1. (a) (right panels labeled as

Fig. 1. (a)

(right panels labeled as II), (c)

time-window in which the difference between conditions was most prominent. Asterisks indicate electrodes at which significant differences between delay conditions (i.e., differences in lexicality effects) were observed.

the scalp topographies of the

ERPs for words and pseudowords per delay condition, (b) results of point-wise t -tests in a 0–300 ms window (left panels labeled as I) and six 50 ms windows

187 on the orbital ridge above and below the right eye and 2 on the lat-

188 eral junctions of both eyes) recorded the vertical- and horizontal

189 electro-oculogram (EOG). Two electrodes were placed on the mas-

190 toids, of which the left was used to reference the signal on-line.

191 Impedance was kept below 5 k for mastoid and scalp electrodes,

192 and below 10 k for EOG electrodes. The EEG signal was analyzed

193 using Brain Vision Analyzer 2.0. The signal was referenced off-line

194 to an average of the two mastoid electrodes and band-pass filtered

195 (Butterworth Zero Phase Filter, 0.1–30 Hz, 24 dB/octave). ERPs were

196 time-locked to auditory onset of the third syllable and the raw

197 data were segmented into 1100 ms epochs (i.e., 200 ms before, and

198 900 ms after third syllable onset). After EOG correction [25], seg-

199 ments that included artifacts were rejected (we allowed a maximal

200 voltage step of 50 V/ms, a 100 V maximal difference in a 200 ms

201 interval, a minimal/maximal amplitude of ±50 V in a segment,

202 and the lowest allowed activity in a 100 ms interval was .5 V). The

203 average proportion of trials that survived artifact rejection was 95%

204 (with a range between 91% and 98% per electrode, and 94% and 95%

205 per condition).

206 ERPs for the ‘dot-trials’, during which a response was required

the ‘dot-trials’, during which a response was required 2 0 7 (97% of the dots were

207 (97% of the dots were detected), were excluded from analyses

208 and the remaining ERPs were averaged separately for words and

209 pseudowords for all three delay conditions (no delay, 440 ms,

210 800 ms) and base-line corrected (200 ms before third syllable

211 onset).

In each delay condition, the difference between ERPs obtained

212

with words versus pseudowords was investigated through point-

213

wise t -tests (see Fig. 1) that were corrected via temporal

214

significance thresholds [26]. In this procedure, the autocorrelation

215

and length of the time-window are critical parameters. However,

216

since it is unclear how the autocorrelation should be estimated [27],

217

we applied the corrections four different ways: assuming low (.3)

218

or high (.9) autocorrelation, and in either one 0–300 ms epoch or six

219

consecutive 50 ms windows. The four approaches yielded compara-

220

ble results (see Fig. 1). The N200 effect (i.e., the word–pseudoword

221

difference) was compared across delay conditions in an overall

222

ANOVA on 50 ms time-windows in between 100 and 300 ms. We

223

also conducted one-way within-subject ANOVAs on the difference-

224

waves at each electrode and time-point (in the 0–300 ms epoch)

225

with delay condition (naturally timed, 440 ms, 800 ms) as the inde-

226

pendent variable.

227

4. Results

228

As can be seen in Fig. 1a, there was a clear effect of stimulus lex-

229

icality in all conditions: Independent of whether the third syllable

230

was naturally timed or delayed relative to the second syllable, items

231

in which the third syllable produced a word yielded more positive

232

(yet similarly shaped) ERPs than items in which the third sylla-

233

ble produced a pseudoword. Early

( ≤ 300 ms) lexicality effects were

(300 ms) lexicality effects were

234

G Model

NSL 30962 1–5

ARTICLE IN PRESS

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

4

M. Baart, A.G. Samuel / Neuroscience Letters xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

explored by point-wise t -tests in each delay condition (see Fig. 1b).

Effects for naturally timed items started at around 60 ms in centro-

parietal electrodes over the right hemisphere and lasted 40 ms.

A more fronto-centrally oriented difference between words and

pseudowords was observed in an 80 ms time-window starting at

around 170 ms. At around 280 ms, differences became more wide-

spread. Lexicality effects in both delay conditions started somewhat

later than in the naturally timed condition (at around 200 ms) and

were more wide-spread and prominent for the 800 ms delay con-

dition than the 440 ms condition.

Next, we calculated the lexicality effect for each delay condi-

tion (i.e., the pseudoword–word difference waves, see Fig. 1c.) and

averaged the difference in four 50 ms time-bins from 100 to 300 ms

(which is the time-frame that captures the N200 effect and is con-

sistent with the positive and negative peaks in the ERPs visible in

Fig. 1a). We submitted the data toa3(delay condition: naturally

timed, 440, 800) × 4 (time window: 100–150 ms, 150–200 ms,

200–250 ms, 250–300 ms) × 9 (electrode: Fz, FC1, FC2, C3, Cz, C4,

CP1, CP2, Pz

1 ) ANOVA. There was a main effect of time win-

= .17, because the lexicality effect

increased from .34 V in the first time-window to .91 V in

the second time-window, t (15) = 2.22, p = .04. However, the N200

effect was quite consistent as none of the other comparisons across

time-windows reached significance (ps > .06). The ANOVA showed

no other main or interaction effects (ps > .09) indicating that the

effect of stimulus lexicality was alike across delay conditions and

electrodes. One-way point-wise within-subject ANOVAs on the

pseudoword–word difference scores (see Fig. 1d), showed promi-

nent main effects from 164 to 214 ms, because the lexicality effect

for the 440 ms delay was smaller than in the other two conditions

dow, F (3,45) = 3.08, p = .04,

about the upcoming sounds for hundreds of milliseconds. However this does not necessarily imply that lexical information is transient by nature, and our findings suggest that lexically generated predic- tions about upcoming sounds remain effective until overridden by new input. Even though we observed a lexicality effect at around 200 ms across all delay conditions, there were differences between 301 conditions. As indicated in Fig. 1a, the lexicality effect for the naturally-timed items reached significance very early, in a 50–100 ms window. MacGregor et al. [1] used single-syllable items in which lexicality of the stimulus was defined by the final plosive and observed similarly early effects of lexicality (50–80 ms after the point where lexical status was determined). Given the absence of such effects in our delay conditions, the natural context possibly not only generated predictions about what to expect, but also about when to expect it. For example, hearing ‘p’ after ‘shee’ in a naturally-timed “sheep” token confirms the lexical prediction as well as the temporal prediction about when it should occur. The same is true for the natural condition in the current study in

295

296

297

298

299

300

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

299 300 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 p

p

2

which lexical status of the stimulus was always determined at the naturally timed third syllable onset. In contrast, in our delay con- ditions, participants knew that lexical information would become available at onset of the third syllable, but their normal predictions about when this would happen were violated. Under these condi- tions, the lexical effect remained robust in the 200 ms range, but the early part of it disappeared. A Bayesian perspective may pro- vide an interesting hypothetical frame-work on this issue: The prior belief about encountering pseudowords in the world (e.g., hear- ing a speaker in a language unknown to the listener) is likely to be higher than encountering the unnatural delay of third syllables as used here. In contrast, the probability of encountering a pseu- doword in the experiment on any given trial was lower (.50) than encountering a delay (.67). Thus, Bayesian inference (i.e., updating of the prior based on evidence) may have been relatively large for delayed items, possibly reducing early lexical processes. 329 However, the 3-way comparison across conditions (Fig. 1d) did

330

328

327

326

325

324

323

322

321

320

319

318

317

316

315

328 327 326 325 324 323 322 321 320 319 318 317 316 3 1 5

(see Fig. 1e for the pair-wise follow-up tests on the average activity

across the electrodes that showed a significant effect).

5 . Discussion

Previous studies have reported that activation of lexical repre-

sentations based on semantic/syntactic context is associated with

not show prominent differences among conditions in the

with not show prominent differences among conditions in the <100 ms 331 332 333 3 3

<100 ms

331

332

333

334

335

336

337

338

339

340

341

342

343

344

345

346

347

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

the N200 effect. In the current study, we addressed two questions:

(1) can we find evidence that single word level lexical predictions

we find evidence that single word level lexical predictions are reflected in an N200 effect? And

are reflected in an N200 effect? And if so, (2) is the pattern of lexical

activation robust against a violation of temporal coherence? Our

naturally timed items yielded an unambiguous N200 effect that

was superimposed on a negative peak, as observed before [5,6].

Furthermore, we observed similarly sized and shaped difference

waves across all three conditions. Our findings are consistent with

reports of single word lexical effects in oddball paradigms [11–13],

and demonstrations of similarly timed and sized N200 effects

(occurring at 150–250 ms and ranging between .71 and .94 V)

for lexical predictions generated by sentence contexts [5,6]. Simi-

larities across contexts presumably arise because the N200 effect

reflects phonological violation of lexical predictions [e.g.,28], which

is essentially the case in both sentential and single word contexts.

As mentioned, the N200 is likely to be functionally distinct from the

subsequent N400 (that is also related to semantic/syntactic con-

text) [e.g.,5,6,9,29]; Hagoort [29] has proposed that the N200 effect

reflects lexical selection at the interface of lexical form and content

(meaning), whereas the N400 is driven by content only.

Critically, the effect of lexicality remained intact when we

delayed the third syllable by 440 or 800 ms, even though the

delayed the third syllable by ∼ 440 or ∼ 800 ms, even though the

ERPs for naturally timed items were clearly different from those in

both delay conditions. This may seem surprising because the sys-

tem usually does not need to retain within-word lexical predictions

1 The N200 effect was largest at Cz (i.e., .76 V) and we therefore included the 9 mid-central electrodes in the ANOVA.

window, going against the Bayesian hypothesis as sketched above. In fact, the effect in the naturally-timed and 800 ms delay con- ditions were quite similar in shape (see Fig. 1c). In contrast, the 440 ms delay condition showed a positive trend in the data (already apparent before third-syllable onset, see Fig. 1a) and a 100 ms delay in the difference waves relative to both other con- ditions, despite the similar shape of the difference waves across conditions (see the 0–200 ms window in Fig. 1c and Fig. 1e). Given that the onset of the lexicality effect for the items with a 800 ms delay was similar to the naturally timed items, the delayed onset of the effect in the 440 ms condition is unlikely to be caused by the delay in the stimulus per se. Instead, it is possible that the delayed effects for the 440 ms condition are related to an increased tempo- ral uncertainty in this condition. That is, when the default state (i.e., the naturally-timed syllable) did not occur, listeners did not know whether the third syllable would occur at 440 ms or at 800 ms. However, as soon as the 440 ms window had passed, only one alternative remained. Clearly however, the between condition differences are less prominent than the consistent lexicality effects: we observed evi- dence for lexical processing starting at 200 ms, and these effects were to a large extent similar in shape and size across all three delay conditions. Note that our words (and pseudowords) were drawn from a small stimulus set and presented many times, which could have caused saturation (which holds for auditory as well as printed items, see [e.g.,30,31]). Saturation could work both ways:

the lexical status of words, as well as the non-lexical status of pseu- dowords, may become less clear with repetition. However, since we

G Model

NSL 30962 1–5

ARTICLE IN PRESS

360

361

362

363

364

365

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

386

387

388

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

396

397

398

399

400

401

402

403

404

405

406

407

408

409

410

411

412

413

414

M. Baart, A.G. Samuel / Neuroscience Letters xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

5

observed clear effects of lexicality even with saturation possibly

working against us, it seems likely that our effects are genuine.

There are some parallels between the current results and recent

ERP investigations of audiovisual speech integration. In those stud-

ies, visual context that provided temporal predictions modulated

auditory processing about 100 ms post-stimulus [32], much as the

naturally-timed stimuli here did. And speech-specific audiovisual

integration was observed at the P2 [33], with effects of phonetic

stimulus congruency (i.e., whether the speech sound phoneti-

cally matched the visual speech context) observed approximately

200 ms after the congruency becomes apparent [33–37]. The cur-

rent experiment shows that lexicality effects are sufficiently robust

in time to be investigated as a superimposed effect at the P2

revealed by the mismatch negativity, Neuroimage 14 (2001)

607–616.

[13] S. van Linden, J.J. Stekelenburg, J. Tuomainen, J. Vroomen, Lexical effects on auditory speech perception: an electrophysiological study, Neurosci. Lett. 420 (2007) 49–52. [14] W.F. Ganong, Phonetic categorization in auditory word perception, J. Exp. Psychol. Human 6 (1980) 110–125. [15] R. Näätänen, P. Paavilainen, K. Alho, K. Reinikainen, M. Sams, Do event-related potentials reveal the mechanism of the auditory sensory memory in the human brain? Neurosci. Lett. 98 (1989) 217–221. [16] P. Gagnepain, R.N. Henson, M.H. Davis, Temporal predictive codes for spoken words in auditory cortex, Curr. Biol. 22 (2012) 615–621. [17] A.G. Samuel, Phonemic restoration: insights from a new methodology, J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 110 (1981) 474–494. [18] C.M. Connine, C. Clifton, Interactive use of lexical information in speech perception, J. Exp. Psychol. Human 13 (1987) 291–299. [19] C.M. Connine, Constraints on interactive processes in auditory word recognition: the role of sentence context, J. Mem. Lang. 26 (1987)

peak, which opens up future possibilities to investigate interactions

between lip-read and lexical speech context.

527–538. 1246–1258.
527–538.
1246–1258.

[20] T.B. O’Rourke, Holcomb, electrophysiological evidence for the efficiency of spoken word processing, Biol. Psychol. 60 (2002) 121–150. [21] P. Praamstra, A.S. Meyer, W.J.M. Levelt, Neurophysiological manifestations of phonological processing: latency variation of a negative ERP component timelocked to phonological mismatch, J. Cognit. Neurosci. 6 (1994) 204–219. [22] A. Duchon, M. Perea, N. Sebastián-Gallés, M. Carreiras, EsPal: one-stop shopping for Spanish word properties, Behav. Res. Methods 45 (2013)

for Spanish word properties, Behav. Res. Met hods 45 (2013) Acknowledgements This work was funded by

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by Rubicon grant 446-11-014 by the

Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO)to MB, and

References

[1] L.J. MacGregor, F. Pulvermüller, M. van Casteren, Y. Shtyrov, Ultra-rapid

access to words in the brain, Nat. Commun. 3 (2012) 711.

[2] N.Y. Egorova, Y. Shtyrov, F. Pulvermüller, Early and parallel processing of

pragmatic and semantic information in speech acts: neurophysiological

evidence, Front. Hum. Neurosci. 7 (2013) 86.

[3] F. Pulvermüller, Y. Shtyrov, O. Hauk, Understanding in an instant:

MINECO grant PSI2010-17781 from the Spanish Ministry of Eco-

nomics and Competitiveness to AGS.

[23] L.B. Astheimer, L.D. Sanders, Predictability affects early perceptual processing of word onsets in continuous speech, Neuropsychologia 49 (2011) 3512–3516. [24] V. Marian, J. Bartolotti, S. Chabal, A. Shook, CLEARPOND: cross-Linguistic easy-access resource for phonological and orthographic neighborhood densities, PLoS ONE 7 (2012) e43230. [25] G. Gratton, M.G. Coles, E. Donchin, A new method for off-line removal of ocular artifact, Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 55 (1983) 468–484. [26] D. Guthrie, J.S. Buchwald, Significance testing of difference potentials, Psychophysiology 28 (1991) 240–244. [27] V. Piai, K. Dahlslätt, E. Maris, Statistically comparing EEG/MEG waveforms through successive significant univariate tests: how bad can it be? Psychophysiology (2014) (in press).

[28]

requirements on neurophysiological responses to spoken sentences, Brain Lang. 39 (1990) 302–318. [29] P. Hagoort, The fractionation of spoken language understanding by measuring electrical and magnetic brain signals, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 363 (2008) 1055–1069. [30] J. Kounios, S.A. Kotz, P.J. Holcomb, On the locus of the semantic satiation effect: evidence from event-related brain potentials, Mem. Cognit. 28 (2000)

neurophysiological evidence for mechanistic language circuits in the brain,

Brain Lang. 110 (2009) 81–94.

circuits in the brain, Brain Lang. 110 (2009) 81–94. J.F. Connolly, S.H. Stewart, N.A. Phillips, The

J.F. Connolly, S.H. Stewart, N.A. Phillips, The effects of processing

[4] Y. Shtyrov, F. Pulvermüller, Early MEG activation dynamics in the left

temporal and inferior frontal cortex reflect semantic context integration, J.

Cognit. Neurosci. 19 (2007) 1633–16642.

[5] D. van den Brink, P. Hagoort, The influence of semantic and syntactic context

constraints on lexical selection and integration in spoken-word

comprehension as revealed by ERPs, J. Cognit. Neurosci. 16 (2004)

1068–10684.

[6] D. van den Brink, C.M. Brown, P. Hagoort, Electrophysiological evidence for

1366–1377.

[31] X. Tian, D.E. Huber, Playing duck duck goose with neurons: change detection through connectivity reduction, Psychol. Sci. 24 (2013) 819–827. [32] J. Vroomen, J.J. Stekelenburg, Visual anticipatory information modulates multisensory interactions of artificial audiovisual stimuli, J. Cognit. Neurosci. 22 (2010) 1583–1596. [33] M. Baart, J.J. Stekelenburg, J. Vroomen, Electrophysiological evidence for speech-specific audiovisual integration, Neuropsychologia 53 (2014)

115–121.

[34] J.J. Stekelenburg, J. Vroomen, Neural correlates of multisensory integration of ecologically valid audiovisual events, J. Cognit. Neurosci. 19 (2007)

1964–1973.

[35] V. Klucharev, R. Möttönen, M. Sams, Electrophysiological indicators of phonetic and non-phonetic multisensory interactions during audiovisual speech perception, Cognit. Brain Res. 18 (2003) 65–75. [36] V. van Wassenhove, K.W. Grant, D. Poeppel, Visual speech speeds up the neural processing of auditory speech, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 102 (2005)

1181–1186.

[37] J. Besle, A. Fort, C. Delpuech, M.H. Giard, Bimodal speech: early suppressive visual effects in human auditory cortex, Eur. J. Neurosci. 20 (2004) 2225–2234.

early contextual influences during spoken-word recognition: N200 versus

N400 effects, J. Cognit. Neurosci. 13 (2001) 967–985.

influences during spoken-word recognition: N200 versus N400 effects, J. Cognit. N eurosci. 13 (2001) 967–985.

[7] C. Van Petten, S. Coulson, S. Rubin, E. Plante, M. Parks, Time course of word

identification and semantic integration in spoken language, J. Exp. Psychol.

Learn. 25 (1999) 394–417.

[8] J.F. Connolly, N.A. Phillips, Event-related potential components reflect

phonological and semantic processing of the terminal word of spoken

sentences, J. Cognit. Neurosci. 6 (1994) 256–266.

[9] J.F. Connolly, N.A. Phillips, S.H. Stewart, W.G. Brake, Event-related potential

sensitivity to acoustic and semantic properties of terminal words in

sentences, Brain Lang. 43 (1992) 1–18.

[10] R. Näätänen, A.W.K. Gaillard, S. Mäntysalo, Early selective-attention effect in

evoked potential reinterpreted, Acta Psychol. 42 (1978) 313–329.

[11] C.M. Pettigrew, B.E. Murdoch, C.W. Ponton, S. Finnigan, P. Alku, J. Kei, R.

Sockalingam, H.J. Chenery, Automatic auditory processing of English words as

indexed by the mismatch negativity, using a multiple deviant paradigm, Ear

mismatch negativity, using a multiple deviant paradigm, Ear Hearing 25 (2004) 284–301. [12] F. Pulvermüller, T.

Hearing 25 (2004) 284–301.

[12] F. Pulvermüller, T. Kujala, Y. Shtyrov, J. Simola, H. Tiitinen, P. Alku, K. Alho, S. Martinkauppi, R.J. Ilmoniemi, R. Näätänen, Memory traces for words as

R.J. Ilmoniemi, R. Näätänen, Memory traces for words as 4 1 5 416 417 4 1

415

416

417

418

419

420

421

422

423

424

425

426

427

428

429

430

431

432

433

434

435

436

437

438

439

440

441

442

443

444

445

446

447

448

449

450

Q5451

452

453

454

455

456

457

458

459

460

461

462

463

464

465

466

467

468

469

470

471

472

473

474

475

476

477

478

479

480

481