1 / 29

Coulson, S. Federmeier, K.D., Van Petten, C., and Kutas, M. (2005)

Right hemisphere sensitivity to word & sentence level context: Evidence From Event-Related Brain Potentials. Coulson, S. Federmeier, K.D., Van Petten, C., and Kutas, M. (2005) JEP: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Gist. Question : Is right hemisphere message blind? Measurement : ERP

mikayla-vargas
Download Presentation

Coulson, S. Federmeier, K.D., Van Petten, C., and Kutas, M. (2005)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Right hemisphere sensitivity to word & sentence level context: Evidence From Event-Related Brain Potentials. Coulson, S. Federmeier, K.D., Van Petten, C., and Kutas, M. (2005) JEP: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.

  2. Gist • Question: Is right hemisphere message blind? • Measurement: ERP • Paradigm: associate priming without/within sentence context • Answer: RH is not message blind, but there is indeed hemispheric asymmetries in the use of word and sentence contexts

  3. Message-blind RH --the hypothesis • LH has the ability to integrate syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic information to construct a message-level representation of meaning. • RH its language competence extends only to word-level priming mechanisms

  4. Message-blind RH --why people made this claim? • LH • priming in RT to words embedded in normal or scrambled sentences (Faust et al. 1995) • Larger priming effect when the amount of context is increased (Faust et al. 1993) • Longer RT to words in implausible sentence context than plausible context (Faust, 1998) • RH • Contexts do not seem to facilitate or hinder the language process so…RH seems to be blind to these message level information..

  5. Message-blind RH --however….. • LH • RH • Should be sensitive to some message level information, since when RH is damaged • patients cannot understand certain kinds of jokes, metaphoric language, and sarcastic utterances • Some studies did find sentence congruity effect in the RH (Chiarello, Liu, & Faust, 2001; Faust, Bar-lev, & Chiarello, 2003)

  6. Ex1 [word level context effect] • Lexical association • Ex2 [sentence level context effect] • Lexical association • Sentence congruity

  7. Experimental design (EX1) Primes are centrally presented, and targets are lateralized to either visual field (split visual field display).

  8. SPLIT VISUAL FIELD DISPLAY

  9. SPLIT VISUAL FIELD DISPLAY

  10. PROCEDURE 1000~1200ms ++++ 200ms spare 0ms 200ms tire 300ms 2500ms ?

  11. Prediction • Ex1[word level context effect] • Since both hemispheres are sensitive to word level info, similar-sized N400 context effects are expected

  12. Experiment 1—results

  13. EX1 LVF/rh

  14. EX1 LVF/rh N400 LPC

  15. EX1 RVF/lh

  16. Experimental design (EX2) The cloze probability were matched between the two types of congruous sentences (associated & unassociated) and also between the two types of incongruous sentences. This was done to ensure that the message level constraints are similar in the associated and unassociated conditions.

  17. Prediction • Ex1[word level context effect] • Since both hemispheres are sensitive to word level info, similar-sized N400 context effects are expected • Ex2[sentence level context effect] • LH: • A large N400 congruity effect • Negligible effects of association • RH: (if the message blind RH model holds) • A large N400 association effect • Negligible effects of context congruity

  18. Experiment 2—results

  19. EX2 LVF/rh N400 LPC

  20. EX2 RVF/lh N400 LPC

  21. Summary • word level: association effects for both LVF/rh and RVF/lh presentation • sentence level: robust congruity effects for both LVF/rh and RVF/lh presentation the message-blind RH model is not supported • At the sentence level, the congruity effect lead to a dramatic attenuation of the association effect. • Lexical context is less important in sentence contexts

  22. unassociated Association effect associated Association effect unassociated associated 5 µV Congruity effect incongruous congruous

  23. Summary • Although both hemispheres make use of word level as well as sentence level contexts, they seem to use them in different ways. • LH seems to make use of lexical association only when the sentence context is incongruous. • RH shows a smaller lexical association effect at the word level, which suggests that RH might be weaker to use this source of semantic context. • RH shows the association effect in congruous sentences there might be a greater reliance on word level relationships in the lexical integration processes in understanding sentences

  24. Questions • Is the LPC the same thing as the P600? • Do blinks also produce surges that might overshadow brain activity on the EEG? • How common is subject attrition due to excessive artifacts? • Onset or peak? Which point is more interesting? In what situations would one or the other be the focus? • What if they ran their experiments on brain damaged patients ? • Why was a naming paradigm chosen for the target as opposed lexical decision? • Great Britain norms vs. US participants ….isn’t it problematic? • Is the hemispheric asymmetry in reliance on lexical relationships has to do with other abilities commonly associated with RH function (e.g., spatial abilities).

  25. Other questions?

  26. ELECTRODE POSITIONS

More Related