1. A rose by Any Other Name: Long-Term Memory Structure and Sentence Processing. Kara D. Federmeier & Marta Kutas presented by Nataliya Chabanyuk LIN7912, Instructor Nina Kazanina University of Ottawa

2. Getting both himself and his car to work on the neighboring island was time- consuming. Every morning he drove for a few minutes and then boarded the ferrygondolaplane

3. Hypothesis and aims of the study The N400 component is sensitive to semantic and category membership manipulations. The N400 component is sensitive to semantic and category membership manipulations. The N400 is used to examine to which extend the structure of long term memory interacts with contextual information during on- line sentence processing. The N400 is used to examine to which extend the structure of long term memory interacts with contextual information during on- line sentence processing. How the readers’ processing is affected by memory structure even when that structure is irrelevant to the language comprehension task. How the readers’ processing is affected by memory structure even when that structure is irrelevant to the language comprehension task. What is the role of memory structure in reading by comparing its influence when sentence contexts are strong versus when they are weaker. What is the role of memory structure in reading by comparing its influence when sentence contexts are strong versus when they are weaker.

4. Background Psycholinguistic research: Effect of context Words that are predictable in a sentence context are perceived and processed more rapidly and accurately than the same words when they occur out of context or in incongruent contexts. Ehrlich & Rayner, 1981; Morris, 1994; Zola, 1984; Duffy, Henderson & Morris, 1989; Hess, Foss & Caroll, 1995; McClelland & O’Regan 1981; Stanovich & West, 1983; Fischler & Bloom, 1985; Kleiman, 1980; Schuberth, Spoehr & Lane, 1981; Duffy et al., 1989; Morris, 1994; Ratcliff, 1987Electrophysiological: support psycholinguistic findings. Contextual information is used early and builds continuously over the course of processing a sentence. Kutas & Dale, 1997; Rugg & Coles, 1995; Kutas & Hillyard, 1984; Van Petten & Kutas, 1990; Schwantes, 1985; Styanokvich & West, 1983; Fischler & Bloom, 1979; Kleiman, 1980; Schwanenflugel & LaCounbt, 1988…

5. Psycholinguistic research: Effect of context Psycholinguistic research: Effect of context Contextual information decreases the duration of readers’ eye fixation. Contextual information decreases the duration of readers’ eye fixation. Congruent contexts facilitate the time to pronounce sentence/phrase final words. Congruent contexts facilitate the time to pronounce sentence/phrase final words. Congruent contexts facilitate the speed of lexical decision. Congruent contexts facilitate the speed of lexical decision.

6. Electrophysiological: support psycholinguistic findings. N400 first observed in 1980 by Kutas & Hillyard in the task of reading for comprehension (semantically anomalous sentence final words) N400 first observed in 1980 by Kutas & Hillyard in the task of reading for comprehension (semantically anomalous sentence final words) Contextual information facilitates processing of highly predictable words (cloze probability) Contextual information facilitates processing of highly predictable words (cloze probability) …and of unexpected but contextually congruous words (& semantically related) …and of unexpected but contextually congruous words (& semantically related)

7. EEG with epileptic subjects Anomalous sentence endings were associated with large potentials in the left and right anterior medial temporal lobes. Those potentials are most probably generated in anterior fusiform, parahippocampal gyri and the hippocampus proper. parahippocampal gyri hippocampus

8. Language areas:

9. Long-Term Memory and N400 Language comprehension crucially relies on information stored in long-term memory, thus, the structure of long-term memory affects word processing during reading. Sensitive to Semantic, syntactic, contextual manipulations; Word and picture recognition memory; Category membership; Insensitive to No semantic manipulations of context; Grammatical or morphological violations; Deviations in non-linguistic stimuli

10. Categorization researches Long term memory is structured on the basis of perceptual and functional similarities captured by semantic categories (taxonomic hierarchy).

11. Experimental study Effects of contextual violations Within category violation. Within category violation. The item comes from the same semantic category as the contextually predicted item and thus share many features in common with it. The item comes from the same semantic category as the contextually predicted item and thus share many features in common with it. Between-category violation. Between-category violation. The item comes from the different semantic category and thus shares far fewer features in common with the predicted item. The item comes from the different semantic category and thus shares far fewer features in common with the predicted item.

12. Within category violation She felt that she couldn’t leave Venice without the experience. It might be a touristy thing to do, but she wanted to ride in a ferry Expected: gondola Between-category violation: helicopter

13. Between category violation The patient was in critical condition and the ambulance wouldn’t be fast enough. They decided they would have to use the ferry Expected: helicopter Within-category violation: plane

14. Your guess: Amy was very anxious about traveling abroad for the first time. She felt surprisingly better, however, when she actually boarded the plane ferry, helicopter, gondola, boat helicopter ferry, gondola, boat gondola

15. ERP expectations In the same time window, best completion will elicit P300-P500; between category violations – N400 What about within-category violation?

16. How the level of processing indexed by the N400 could be interpreted. 1. The system is sensitive to a general feature match between an item and a sentence context: Similar amplitude to expected items and within-category violations. 2. The system is sensitive to specific contextual information: Similar amplitude of N400 to both within and between- category violations.

17. How the level of processing indexed by the N400 could be interpreted. 3. The system is structured by feature similarity as reflected in in semantic categories: N400 will elicit smaller amplitude to within- category violations related to between- category violations. 4. System is sensitive both to specific contextual information and to the relationship between concepts in long term memory: N400 will be of the intermediate amplitude.

18. Study Design and Technique Materials: 132 pairs of sentences with three target words (3 lists of 44 sentences) 1. The expected exemplar, the highest cloze probability 2. The within-category violation, an unexpected (cloze probability<0.05) exemplar from the same taxonomic category as the expected exemplar 3. The between category violation, an unexpected (cloze probability<0.05)exemplar from a different category than the expected exemplar. There were no lexical associates of any of the possible endings within the sentence containing the target word.

19. Study Design and Technique Material. Target items were rotated across the stimulus set such that each item appeared three times, once as each kind of ending. Target conditions were controlled for length, frequency and concreteness; context sentences were controlled for length and grammatical complexity.

20. Study Design and Technique Cloze procedure: cloze probability (CP) for a given word in a given context was calculated as the proportion of individuals choosing to complete that particular context with that particular word. Mean CP for the expected exemplars: 0.74 Mean CP for within category violations: 0.004 Mean CP for between category violations: 0.001

21. Study Design and Technique Constraint. High constraint (one single preferable ending sentences with CP from 0.784 to 1.0 Low constraint sentences (several compatible cloze endings) with CP from 0.17 to 0.784

22. Study Design and Technique Plausibility ratings. Does the ending make sense? Mean PR for expected exemplars:95.6% Mean PR for within-cat. violations:28.3% Mean PR for between-cat. violations:15.3% ANOVA confirmed the significant plausibility of Ending Type.

23. Study Design and Technique Participants. 10 men & 8 women, 18 to 24 years of age, right-handed, monolingual English speakers

24. Study Design and Technique Experimental Procedure At the zoo, my sister asked if they painted the black and white strips on the animal.

25. xxxxxxxxxxxxx

26. I

27. explained

28. to

29. her

30. that

31. they

32. were

33. natural

34. features

35. of

36. a

37. zebra.

39. Study Design and Technique Experimental procedure. Sentence final words were presented for a duration of 500 ms I explained to her that they were natural features of a donkey. (200 ms) I explained to her that the were natural features of a poodle. (200 ms)

40. Study Design and Technique Experimental Procedure. Recognition memory test, consisting of 50 sets of sentence pairs: 10 new ones, 20 unchanged experimental pairs, 20 modified sentence pairs-to be classified as new, old or similar.

41. Study Design and Technique EEG Recording Parameters. The electroencephalogram was recorded from 26 tin electrodes embedded in an Electro-cap, referenced to the left mastoid. Data Analysis. Trials contaminated by eye movements, excessive muscle activity, or amplifier blocking were rejected off-line before averaging.

42. Schematic of the electrode array used in the experiment. In all, 26 scalp electrodes were employed, arranged in a series of four equally spaced concentric rings.

43. Results Behavior. Correctly classified 88% of the items on the recognition memory test. The most common mistake: ‘old’ classified as ‘similar’ and ‘similar’ as ‘old’. Conclusion: The experimental sentences were attended during the recording session. The experimental sentences were attended during the recording session.

44. Results ERPs Early components in all conditions: at posterior sites: P1, N1, P2 at frontal sites: N1, P2

45. Results ERPs In the expected exemplar condition: broad late positivity largest over central and posterior sites; In two violation conditions: Negative peaking around 400 ms (N400) largest over central and pariental sites. The N400 is followed by an extended late positivity of similar amplitude to that observed for the expected exemplars.

47. Results. Effect of ending type. Effect of ending type, shown at the right medial central site. A three-way split can be observed in the amplitude of the N400 response. N400 amplitude was significantly larger for between-category violations and significantly larger for within-category violations than for expected exemplars.

48. Results. Distribution of the N400. Difference waves showing N400 effect to within-category violations and between-category violations. The waveforms at the 16 electrode sites illustrate the distribution of the N400 effect. For both conditions, the N400 effect was larger over medial posterior sites and slightly larger on the right than on the left.

49. Results. Constraint effect. Effect of constraint on the N400 response, shown at the right medial central site. Constraint did not affect the response to expected exemplars or between-category violations. Within-category violations in high constraint sentences elicited smaller amplitude N400s than within- category violations in low constraint sentences.

50. Summary of main results. Expected exemplars elicit a late positivity in the 350-to 400-ms time window. Expected exemplars elicit a late positivity in the 350-to 400-ms time window. Both within-category violations and between- category violations elicit a qualitively similar N400 response with a medial, posterior- central, right hemisphere distribution. Both within-category violations and between- category violations elicit a qualitively similar N400 response with a medial, posterior- central, right hemisphere distribution. The amplitude of the N400 is bigger for between-than for within-category violations. The amplitude of the N400 is bigger for between-than for within-category violations. The amplitude of the N400 is bigger for within- category violations in low than in hight constraint sentences. The amplitude of the N400 is bigger for within- category violations in low than in hight constraint sentences.

51. Discussion The aim of the study was to find out: To which extend the processing of the final word in the sentence is affected not only by specific information directly activated by prior words (context) in the sentence, but also by more general, context-independent information (semantic feature overlap) indirectly deriving from the structure of real-world knowledge in long-term memory.

52. Discussion If the on-line processing of two items sharing significant numbers of semantic features in common differed when the preceding context more consistent with one than the other. If the on-line processing of two items; neither of which is especially consistent with the context, nonetheless differed as a function of their semantic similarity to the most probable or expected ending. If the impact of either of these variables would be modulated by the degree to which the context anticipated a particular exemplar versus several possibilities.

53. Discussion Expected exemplar elicited a late positivity. Within-category violation elicited a moderate N400 between 300 and 600 ms Conclusion: Context processing serves to make available specific feature information, not only general feature information.

54. Discussion The amplitude of the N400 is larger in between- category violations than in within-category violations. Conclusion: The language processing system is sensitive to the categorical relationship. The influences of context and semantic feature overlap on a word’s processing are of the same kind.

55. Discussion What was confirmed: Best completions enjoy greater processing benefits than semantically related but contextually unexpected endings, although both typically show facilated processing relative to contextually and semantically unrelated endings.

56. Discussion What was found: The smaller N400 to within-category violations compared to between-category violations reflects an influence of semantic memory structure, built of real-world experience, on on-line language processing. The processing system’s sensitivity to the feature overlap affords within-category violations a processing benefit relative to the between- category violations.

57. Discussion Contra arguments: The results reflect lexical associative priming from a word in the sentence context to the expected exemplar and, by extension, to the within-category violation. No: target sentences did not contain any lexical associates to any ending type; distance

58. Discussion Contra-argument. Plausibility: within-category violations elicited smaller N400 than between category violation because they were more plausible, i.e., actually did fit the context better. Plausibility alone does not suffice: N400 amplitudes are not monotonically related to rated plausibility. Broken down by contextual constraint.

59. Discussion Effect of constraint on the N400 response, shown at the right medial central site. Constraint did not affect the response to expected exemplars or between-category violations. Within-category violations in high constraint sentences elicited smaller amplitude N400s than within- category violations in low constraint sentences.

60. Discussion Contra-argument.Plausibility. Among the within-category violation endings, the more plausible endings elicit larger N400 than do the more implausible endings.

61. Discussion Plausibility. ‘Checkmate!’ Rosaline announced with glee. She was getting to be really good at baseball. (H) elicit a smaller N400 than She keeps twirling it around and around under her collar. Stephanie seems really happy that Dan gave her that earring. (L)

62. Discussion As lexical associative priming and plausibility are not enough to account for the N400 amplitude, the explanation is inherent in the structure of information in long-term memory: Context sets up very specific expectations for the expected exemplar and provides the within- category violations with the greater facilitation. Conclusion: a functional link between the expected endings and the within-category violations, reflecting memory structure.

63. Discussion N400 responds to the degree of mismatch of every word related to the context. Overlap between of semantic features of the within-category violation and expected exemplar determines the size of the observed N400 response. Thus, long-term memory structure has an inherent effect on sentence processing in real time.

64. Discussion What was known: Semantic memory has a categorical structural component. What was observed: A reliable category-based effect during the processing of the sentence final word outside of a categorization task. Conclusion: Category-based structure of long memory influences language processing.

65. Conclusion Language comprehension system is sensitive to specific contextual information and to the consistency between that specific information and the meaning of a target word by around 375 ms into word processing. In the same time window the influence of contextual information on word processing and influence of semantic overlap is observed. It is an inherent influence of long-term memory structure on language processing.

66. Conclusion The processing of a sentence context results in the activation of a set of semantic features associated with the word or words that are likely to come next. Semantic feature (mis) match determines the difficulty pf processing. Stronger contexts allow better predictions and greater facilitation for items that share features with the predicted word.

67. Conclusion Context and long-memory structure have a dynamic, mutually dependent relationship with one another and contribute jointly to the process involved in making sense of what read.

68. The End!!!