Publications

Displaying 1 - 10 of 10
  • Lemhöfer, K., Schriefers, H., & Indefrey, P. (2020). Syntactic processing in L2 depends on perceived reliability of the input: Evidence from P600 responses to correct input. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46(10), 1948-1965. doi:10.1037/xlm0000895.

    Abstract

    In 3 ERP experiments, we investigated how experienced L2 speakers process natural and correct syntactic input that deviates from their own, sometimes incorrect, syntactic representations. Our previous study (Lemhöfer, Schriefers, & Indefrey, 2014) had shown that L2 speakers do engage in native-like syntactic processing of gender agreement but base this processing on their own idiosyncratic (and sometimes incorrect) grammars. However, as in other standard ERP studies, but different from realistic L2 input, the materials in that study contained a large proportion of incorrect sentences. In the present study, German speakers of Dutch read exclusively objectively correct Dutch sentences that did or did not contain subjective determiner “errors” (e.g., de boot “the boat,” which conflicts with the intuition of many German speakers that the correct phrase should be het boot). During reading for comprehension (Experiment 1), no syntax-related ERP responses for subjectively incorrect compared to correct phrases were observed. The same was true even when participants explicitly attended to and learned from the determiners in the sentences (Experiment 2). Only when participants judged the correctness of determiners in each sentence (Experiment 3) did a clear P600 appear. These results suggest that the full and native-like use of subjective grammars, as reflected in the P600 to subjective violations, occurs only when speakers have reason to mistrust the grammaticality of the input, either because of the nature of the task (grammaticality judgments) or because of the salient presence of incorrect sentences.
  • FitzPatrick, I., & Indefrey, P. (2016). Accessing Conceptual Representations for Speaking [Editorial]. Frontiers in Psychology, 7: 1216. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01216.

    Abstract

    Systematic investigations into the role of semantics in the speech production process have remained elusive. This special issue aims at moving forward toward a more detailed account of how precisely conceptual information is used to access the lexicon in speaking and what corresponding format of conceptual representations needs to be assumed. The studies presented in this volume investigated effects of conceptual processing on different processing stages of language production, including sentence formulation, lemma selection, and word form access.
  • Indefrey, P. (2016). On putative shortcomings and dangerous future avenues: response to Strijkers & Costa. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(4), 517-520. doi:10.1080/23273798.2015.1128554.
  • Weber, K., Christiansen, M., Petersson, K. M., Indefrey, P., & Hagoort, P. (2016). fMRI syntactic and lexical repetition effects reveal the initial stages of learning a new language. The Journal of Neuroscience, 36, 6872-6880. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3180-15.2016.

    Abstract

    When learning a new language, we build brain networks to process and represent the acquired words and syntax and integrate these with existing language representations. It is an open question whether the same or different neural mechanisms are involved in learning and processing a novel language compared to the native language(s). Here we investigated the neural repetition effects of repeating known and novel word orders while human subjects were in the early stages of learning a new language. Combining a miniature language with a syntactic priming paradigm, we examined the neural correlates of language learning online using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). In left inferior frontal gyrus (LIFG) and posterior temporal cortex the repetition of novel syntactic structures led to repetition enhancement, while repetition of known structures resulted in repetition suppression. Additional verb repetition led to an
    increase in the syntactic repetition enhancement effect in language-related brain regions. Similarly the repetition of verbs led to repetition enhancement effects in areas related to lexical and semantic processing, an effect that continued to increase in a subset of these regions. Repetition enhancement might reflect a mechanism to build and strengthen a neural network to process novel syntactic structures and lexical items. By contrast, the observed repetition suppression points to overlapping neural mechanisms for native and new language constructions when these have sufficient structural similarities.
  • Weber, K., Luther, L., Indefrey, P., & Hagoort, P. (2016). Overlap and differences in brain networks underlying the processing of complex sentence structures in second language users compared to native speakers. Brain Connectivity, 6(4), 345-355. doi:10.1089/brain.2015.0383.

    Abstract

    When we learn a second language later in life do we integrate it with the established neural networks in place for the first language or is at least a partially new network recruited? While there is evidence that simple grammatical structures in a second language share a system with the native language, the story becomes more multifaceted for complex sentence structures. In this study we investigated the underlying brain networks in native speakers compared to proficient second language users while processing complex sentences. As hypothesized, complex structures were processed by the same large-scale inferior frontal and middle temporal language networks of the brain in the second language, as seen in native speakers. These effects were seen both in activations as well as task-related connectivity patterns. Furthermore, the second language users showed increased task-related connectivity from inferior frontal to inferior parietal regions of the brain, regions related to attention and cognitive control, suggesting less automatic processing for these structures in a second language.
  • Davidson, D., & Indefrey, P. (2011). Error-related activity and correlates of grammatical plasticity. Frontiers in Psychology, 2: 219. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00219.

    Abstract

    Cognitive control involves not only the ability to manage competing task demands, but also the ability to adapt task performance during learning. This study investigated how violation-, response-, and feedback-related electrophysiological (EEG) activity changes over time during language learning. Twenty-two Dutch learners of German classified short prepositional phrases presented serially as text. The phrases were initially presented without feedback during a pre-test phase, and then with feedback in a training phase on two separate days spaced 1 week apart. The stimuli included grammatically correct phrases, as well as grammatical violations of gender and declension. Without feedback, participants' classification was near chance and did not improve over trials. During training with feedback, behavioral classification improved and violation responses appeared to both types of violation in the form of a P600. Feedback-related negative and positive components were also present from the first day of training. The results show changes in the electrophysiological responses in concert with improving behavioral discrimination, suggesting that the activity is related to grammar learning.
  • Hanulová, J., Davidson, D. J., & Indefrey, P. (2011). Where does the delay in L2 picture naming come from? Psycholinguistic and neurocognitive evidence on second language word production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 902-934. doi:10.1080/01690965.2010.509946.

    Abstract

    Bilinguals are slower when naming a picture in their second language than when naming it in their first language. Although the phenomenon has been frequently replicated, it is not known what causes the delay in the second language. In this article we discuss at what processing stages a delay might arise according to current models of bilingual processing and how the available behavioural and neurocognitive evidence relates to these proposals. Suggested plausible mechanisms, such as frequency or interference effects, are compatible with a naming delay arising at different processing stages. Haemodynamic and electrophysiological data seem to point to a postlexical stage but are still too scarce to support a definite conclusion.
  • Indefrey, P. (2011). Neurobiology of syntax. In P. C. Hogan (Ed.), The Cambridge encyclopedia of the language sciences (pp. 835-838). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Indefrey, P. (2011). The spatial and temporal signatures of word production components: a critical update. Frontiers in Psychology, 2(255): 255. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00255.

    Abstract

    In the first decade of neurocognitive word production research the predominant approach was brain mapping, i.e., investigating the regional cerebral brain activation patterns correlated with word production tasks, such as picture naming and word generation. Indefrey and Levelt (2004) conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of word production studies that used this approach and combined the resulting spatial information on neural correlates of component processes of word production with information on the time course of word production provided by behavioral and electromagnetic studies. In recent years, neurocognitive word production research has seen a major change toward a hypothesis-testing approach. This approach is characterized by the design of experimental variables modulating single component processes of word production and testing for predicted effects on spatial or temporal neurocognitive signatures of these components. This change was accompanied by the development of a broader spectrum of measurement and analysis techniques. The article reviews the findings of recent studies using the new approach. The time course assumptions of Indefrey and Levelt (2004) have largely been confirmed requiring only minor adaptations. Adaptations of the brain structure/function relationships proposed by Indefrey and Leven (2004) include the precise role of subregions of the left inferior frontal gyrus as well as a probable, yet to date unclear role of the inferior parietal cortex in word production.
  • Van de Meerendonk, N., Indefrey, P., Chwilla, D. J., & Kolk, H. H. (2011). Monitoring in language perception: Electrophysiological and hemodynamic responses to spelling violations. Neuroimage, 54, 2350-2363. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.10.022.

    Abstract

    The monitoring theory of language perception proposes that competing representations that are caused by strong expectancy violations can trigger a conflict which elicits reprocessing of the input to check for possible processing errors. This monitoring process is thought to be reflected by the P600 component in the EEG. The present study further investigated this monitoring process by comparing syntactic and spelling violations in an EEG and an fMRI experiment. To assess the effect of conflict strength, misspellings were embedded in sentences that were weakly or strongly predictive of a critical word. In support of the monitoring theory, syntactic and spelling violations elicited similarly distributed P600 effects. Furthermore, the P600 effect was larger to misspellings in the strongly compared to the weakly predictive sentences. The fMRI results showed that both syntactic and spelling violations increased activation in the left inferior frontal gyrus (lIFG), while only the misspellings activated additional areas. Conflict strength did not affect the hemodynamic response to spelling violations. These results extend the idea that the lIFG is involved in implementing cognitive control in the presence of representational conflicts in general to the processing of errors in language perception.

Share this page