LUND UNIVERSITY

PO Box 117221 00 Lund+46 46-222 00 00

ERP studies of visual and auditory processing of negated sentences

Farshchi, Sara; Andersson, Annika; van de Weijer, Joost; Paradis, Carita

2019

Document Version:Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Link to publication

Citation for published version (APA):Farshchi, S., Andersson, A., van de Weijer, J., & Paradis, C. (2019). ERP studies of visual and auditoryprocessing of negated sentences. Poster session presented at XIV International Symposium ofPsycholinguistics, Tarragona, Spain.

Total number of authors:4

General rightsUnless other specific re-use rights are stated the following general rights apply:Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authorsand/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by thelegal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private studyor research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal

Read more about Creative commons licenses: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will removeaccess to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

EEG recording and processing

Analysis• Time-windows for detecting N400, P600, and a late effect [5]:

• Visual: 300-400, 400-500, 500-700, 800-1000 ms• Auditory: 200-400, 400-600, 600-800, 800-1000 ms

• Amplitudes for congruent and incongruent conditions analyzed for each negation type and each time-window separately

• Mixed-effects modelling, multiple models of various complexity compared, model with lowest AIC reported• Regions of interest (anterior/central/posterior) and hemisphere (left/mid/right) added as predictors• Subject and electrode as random factors

ERP studies of visual and auditory processing of negated sentences

Sara Farshchi1, Annika Andersson2, Joost van de Weijer1, and Carita Paradis11Centre for Languages and Literature, Lund University

2Department of Swedish, Linnaeus University

Previous research shows that negation is ignored in initial processing and the event-related potential (ERP) component N400 is insensitive to negation in the presence of semantic priming effects [2-3, 5]. But other evidence has shown that negation can be readily integrated and incongruities in negated sentences can elicit an N400 [6]. Most of this research has focused on negated forms such as not, no or any while little is known about prefixally negated words (e.g. unauthorized, unintentional) despite their high frequency of occurrence in language use [7].

Visual:• Affirmative: N400-P600: successful detection of incongruities (N400) followed by re-

evaluation of content to repair meaning (P600)• Sentential negation: no N400, but a negativity with a longer latency than the typical

N400: negation not entirely ignored in processing but negated meaning not fullypresent in memory either

• Prefixal negation: sustained anterior negativity: negated meaning needed to be retrieved from working memory, which was taxing

Auditory:• Affirmative: N400-P600• Sentential negation: no N400 but a P600: re-evaluation of content• Prefixal negation: late positivity (P600): re-evaluation of content

• Negated sentences were not ignored in early processing [unlike 2-3, 5], nor were theyprocessed the same way as affirmative sentences [unlike 6].

• We found evidence for a more nuanced processing of negation suggesting that incongruities in negated sentences involved different processing mechanisms thanthose in affirmative sentences.

• Prefixal negation was the most difficult form to process in both studies, hence was not likely to be processed the same way as affirmative forms.

• Auditory processing of negated sentences was easier (clearer ERP effects) than word-by-word visual processing.

• Two ERP experiments in visual and auditory modalities to investigate affirmatives (authorized), prefixal negation (unauthorized) and sentential negation (not authorized) in sentential contexts such as example (1) :

1) The White House announced that the new Obama biography was authorized/unauthorized/not authorized and the details in the book were correct/wrong in

actual fact • ERPs time-locked to the critical word (underlined), the congruency of which was

determined by the adjective (bold) in the first part of the sentence. We asked the following questions:

Visual study:Ø Is there a delay in the integration of negated meanings?Ø Is prefixal negation processed similar to the negated form or the affirmative form?

Auditory study:Ø Is auditory presentation of sentences more natural and easier than visual

processing?

Visual Auditory

Incongruent

Congruent

[1] Connolly, J. F., & Phillips, N. A. (1994). Event-related potential components reflect phonological and semantic processing of terminal word of spoken sentences. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 6(3), 256-266

[2] Ferguson, H. J., Sanford, A. J., & Leuthold, H. (2008). Eye-movements and ERPs reveal the time-course of processing negation and remitting counterfactual worlds. Brain Research, 1236, 113-125.

[3] Fischler, I., Bloom, P. A., Childers, D. G., Roucos, S. E., & Perry, N. W. (1983). Brain potentials related to stages of sentence verification. Psychophysiology, 20(4), 400-409.

[4] Groppe, D. M., Choi, M., Huang, T., Schilz, J., Topkins, B., Urbach, T., & Kutas, M. (2010). The phonemic restoration effect reveals pre-N400 effect of supportive sentence context in speech perception. Brain Research, 1361, 54-66.

[5] Lüdtke, J., Friedrich, C. K., De Filippis, M., & Kaup, B. (2008). Event-related potential correlates of negation in a sentence–picture verification paradigm. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(8), 1355-1370.

[6] Nieuwland, M. S., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2008). When the truth is not too hard to handle: An event-related potential study on pragmatics of negation. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1213-1218.

[7] Tottie, G. (1980). Affixal and non-affixal negation in English - Two systems in (almost) complementary distribution. Studia Linguistica , 34(2), 101-123.

• Prefixal negation more difficult than sentential negation. Why? Unnatural use?• Early positivty for prefixal negation in auditory study?• Positive effects in negated sentences in auditory study, P600?• ERP effects in auditory studies later than those in visual study, unlike previous research? • Pre-N400 negativity in auditory study (affirmatives), an N250 [1,4]?

The White House announced that the new Obama biography was not authorized and the details in the book were correct/wrong in actual fact

The White House announced that the new Obama biography was unauthorized and the details in the book were correct/wrong in actual fact

The White House announced that the new Obama biography was authorized and the details in the book were correct/wrong in actual fact

Sentential negation

Prefixal negation

Affirmative

β = -0.85 (0.20), t = -4.15 β = 0.81 (0.11), t = 7.26

β = -0.40 (0.11), t = -3.39

β = -0.45 (0.12), t = -3.63

β = -1.14 (0.20), t = -5.53

β = -1.55 (0.25), t = -6.23

β = -0.63 (0.12), t = -4.87

β = -0.45 (0.09), t = -4.65

β = -0.59 (0.11), t = -5.34

β = 0.42 (0.10), t = 4.13 β = 0.58 (0.10), t = 5.43

β = 1.03 (0.11), t = 8.81 β = 0.86 (0.10), t = 8.21

β = 0.54 (0.12), t = 4.35

Note. In the two figures above, the shaded areas indicate all the time-windows where a significant difference between the incongruent and congruent conditions in each sentence type was found. For presentation purposes, only parts of the (significant) results arereported where the estimated difference (β), the standard error within parantheses and the t-value (significant > 2) are reported.

Presented at the XIV International Symposium of Psycholinguistics in Tarragona, Spain, on 11, April, 2019

Material• 3 pseudo-randomized lists each including 108 (visual) and 102 (auditory) items

Procedure

Participants• 26 English native speakers (18 F, mean age=29.9)

Presentation• Counter-spliced, 9 and 11 ms before the

adjectives and critical wordsParticipants• 32 English native speakers (21 F, mean age=24.8)

+

The

new

…

???

Fixation cross (disappeared upon button press)

Blank screen (200 ms)

Word presentation (300 ms)

Question marks to prompt an answer to ”Did the sentencemake sense, logically?”

Word presentation (300 ms)

Fixation cross (participants kept their eyesfixated while listenning)

Question marks to prompt an answer to ”Did the sentencemake sense, logically?”

Audio presentation of sentencesone by one

• Neuroscan Easycap• 30 scalp, 2 mastoid and 4 facial electrodes• Recordings at 500 Hz• Online referenced to left mastoid

• Offline referenced to average of both mastoids• Filters of 0.01 and 40 Hz• ICA for removing eye artifacts• Epochs of 1000 ms (plus 100 ms baseline)

Method

+

???

Summary of findingsIntroduction

Aim and research questions

Conclusions

References

Open questions

Visual Auditory

Sentential negationAffirmative

-2 μV1000 msec

VEOG HEOG FP1 FP2

F7 F3 FZ F4 F8

FT7 FC3 FCZ FC4 FT8

T7 C3 CZ C4 T8

TP7 CP3 CPZ CP4 TP8

P7 P3 PZ P4 P8

O1 OZ O2

GAV BaseT&F

VEOG HEOG FP1 FP2

F7 F3 FZ F4 F8

FT7 FC3 FCZ FC4 FT8

T7 C3 CZ C4 T8

TP7 CP3 CPZ CP4 TP8

P7 P3 PZ P4 P8

O1 OZ O2

GAV BaseT&F

VEOG HEOG FP1 FP2

F7 F3 FZ F4 F8

FT7 FC3 FCZ FC4 FT8

T7 C3 CZ C4 T8

TP7 CP3 CPZ CP4 TP8

P7 P3 PZ P4 P8

O1 OZ O2

GAV BaseT&F

FP1

F7 F3 FZ F4 F8

FT7 FC3 FCZ FC4 FT8

T7 C3 CZ C4 T8

TP7 CP3 CPZ CP4 TP8

P7 P3 PZ P4 P8

O1 OZ O2

FP1

F7 F3 FZ F4 F8

FT7 FC3 FCZ FC4 FT8

T7 C3 CZ C4 T8

TP7 CP3 CPZ CP4 TP8

P7 P3 PZ P4 P8

O1 OZ O2

FP1

F7 F3 FZ F4 F8

FT7 FC3 FCZ FC4 FT8

T7 C3 CZ C4 T8

TP7 CP3 CPZ CP4 TP8

P7 P3 PZ P4 P8

O1 OZ O2

F7 F3 FZ F4 F8

FT7 FC3 FCZ FC4 FT8

T7 C3 CZ C4 T8

TP7 CP3 CPZ CP4 TP8

P7 P3 PZ P4 P8

O1 OZ O2

1unT =440 2unF =440 Nsubs = 52

F7 F3 FZ F4 F8

FT7 FC3 FCZ FC4 FT8

T7 C3 CZ C4 T8

TP7 CP3 CPZ CP4 TP8

P7 P3 PZ P4 P8

O1 OZ O2

1unT =440 2unF =440 Nsubs = 52

F7 F3 FZ F4 F8

FT7 FC3 FCZ FC4 FT8

T7 C3 CZ C4 T8

TP7 CP3 CPZ CP4 TP8

P7 P3 PZ P4 P8

O1 OZ O2

1unT =440 2unF =440 Nsubs = 52

Prefixal negation

8 μV

Sentential negationAffirmative Prefixal negation

VEOG HEOG FP1 FP2

F7 F3 FZ F4 F8

FT7 FC3 FCZ FC4 FT8

T7 C3 CZ C4 T8

TP7 CP3 CPZ CP4 TP8

P7 P3 PZ P4 P8

O1 OZ O2

GAV BaseT&F latest

VEOG HEOG FP1 FP2

F7 F3 FZ F4 F8

FT7 FC3 FCZ FC4 FT8

T7 C3 CZ C4 T8

TP7 CP3 CPZ CP4 TP8

P7 P3 PZ P4 P8

O1 OZ O2

GAV BaseT&F latest

VEOG HEOG FP1 FP2

F7 F3 FZ F4 F8

FT7 FC3 FCZ FC4 FT8

T7 C3 CZ C4 T8

TP7 CP3 CPZ CP4 TP8

P7 P3 PZ P4 P8

O1 OZ O2

GAV BaseT&F latest

VEOG HEOG FP1 FP2

F7 F3 FZ F4 F8

FT7 FC3 FCZ FC4 FT8

T7 C3 CZ C4 T8

TP7 CP3 CPZ CP4 TP8

P7 P3 PZ P4 P8

O1 OZ O2

GAV NotT&F latest

VEOG HEOG FP1 FP2

F7 F3 FZ F4 F8

FT7 FC3 FCZ FC4 FT8

T7 C3 CZ C4 T8

TP7 CP3 CPZ CP4 TP8

P7 P3 PZ P4 P8

O1 OZ O2

GAV NotT&F latest

VEOG HEOG FP1 FP2

F7 F3 FZ F4 F8

FT7 FC3 FCZ FC4 FT8

T7 C3 CZ C4 T8

TP7 CP3 CPZ CP4 TP8

P7 P3 PZ P4 P8

O1 OZ O2

GAV NotT&F latest

VEOG HEOG FP1 FP2

F7 F3 FZ F4 F8

FT7 FC3 FCZ FC4 FT8

T7 C3 CZ C4 T8

TP7 CP3 CPZ CP4 TP8

P7 P3 PZ P4 P8

O1 OZ O2

GAV UnT&F latest

VEOG HEOG FP1 FP2

F7 F3 FZ F4 F8

FT7 FC3 FCZ FC4 FT8

T7 C3 CZ C4 T8

TP7 CP3 CPZ CP4 TP8

P7 P3 PZ P4 P8

O1 OZ O2

GAV UnT&F latest

VEOG HEOG FP1 FP2

F7 F3 FZ F4 F8

FT7 FC3 FCZ FC4 FT8

T7 C3 CZ C4 T8

TP7 CP3 CPZ CP4 TP8

P7 P3 PZ P4 P8

O1 OZ O2

GAV UnT&F latest

1000 msec

4 μV

-4 μV

Results