Influences of semantic and syntactic incongruence on readiness potential in turn-end anticipation

Wesselmeier H, Jansen S, Müller HM (2014)
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8, 296: 1-9.

Download
OA
Journal Article | Published | English
Abstract
Knowing when it is convenient to take a turn in a conversation is an important task for dialog partners. As it appears that this decision is made before the transition point has been reached, it seems to involve anticipation. There are a variety of studies in the literature that provide possible explanations for turn-end anticipation. This study particularly focuses on how turn-end anticipation relies on syntactic and/or semantic information during utterance processing, as tested with syntactically and semantically violated sentences. With a combination reaction time and EEG experiment, we used the onset latencies of the readiness potential (RP) to uncover possible differences in response preparation. Although the mean anticipation timing accuracy (ATA) values of the behavioral test were all within a similar time range (control sentences: 108 ms, syntactically violated sentences: 93 ms and semantically violated sentences: 116 ms), we found evidence that response preparation is indeed different for syntactically and semantically violated sentences in comparison with control sentences. Our preconscious EEG data, in the form of RP results, indicated a response preparation onset to sentence end interval of 1452 ms in normal sentences, 937 ms in sentences with syntactic violations and 944 ms in sentences with semantic violations. Compared with control sentences, these intervals resulted in a significant RP interruption for both sentence types and indicate an interruption of preconscious response preparation. However, the behavioral response to sentence types occurred at comparable time points.
Publishing Year
ISSN
eISSN
PUB-ID

Cite this

Wesselmeier H, Jansen S, Müller HM. Influences of semantic and syntactic incongruence on readiness potential in turn-end anticipation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2014;8, 296:1-9.
Wesselmeier, H., Jansen, S., & Müller, H. M. (2014). Influences of semantic and syntactic incongruence on readiness potential in turn-end anticipation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 296, 1-9.
Wesselmeier, H., Jansen, S., and Müller, H. M. (2014). Influences of semantic and syntactic incongruence on readiness potential in turn-end anticipation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8, 296, 1-9.
Wesselmeier, H., Jansen, S., & Müller, H.M., 2014. Influences of semantic and syntactic incongruence on readiness potential in turn-end anticipation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 296, p 1-9.
H. Wesselmeier, S. Jansen, and H.M. Müller, “Influences of semantic and syntactic incongruence on readiness potential in turn-end anticipation”, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, vol. 8, 296, 2014, pp. 1-9.
Wesselmeier, H., Jansen, S., Müller, H.M.: Influences of semantic and syntactic incongruence on readiness potential in turn-end anticipation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 8, 296, 1-9 (2014).
Wesselmeier, Hendrik, Jansen, Stefanie, and Müller, Horst M. “Influences of semantic and syntactic incongruence on readiness potential in turn-end anticipation”. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8, 296 (2014): 1-9.
Main File(s)
Access Level
OA Open Access
Last Uploaded
2014-06-04 15:37:18

This data publication is cited in the following publications:
This publication cites the following data publications:

38 References

Data provided by Europe PubMed Central.

The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory.
Oldfield RC., Neuropsychologia 9(1), 1971
PMID: 5146491
Event-related potentials suggest early interaction between syntax and semantics during on-line sentence comprehension.
Palolahti M, Leino S, Jokela M, Kopra K, Paavilainen P., Neurosci. Lett. 384(3), 2005
PMID: 15894426
Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue.
Pickering MJ, Garrod S., Behav Brain Sci 27(2), 2004
PMID: 15595235
Do people use language production to make predictions during comprehension?
Pickering MJ, Garrod S., Trends Cogn. Sci. (Regul. Ed.) 11(3), 2007
PMID: 17254833
A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation.
Sacks H., Schegloff E., Jefferson G.., 1974
A new method for the estimation of the onset of the lateralized readiness potential (LRP).
Schwarzenau P., Falkenstein M., Hoorman J., Hohsbein J.., 1998
Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation.
Stivers T, Enfield NJ, Brown P, Englert C, Hayashi M, Heinemann T, Hoymann G, Rossano F, de Ruiter JP, Yoon KE, Levinson SC., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106(26), 2009
PMID: 19553212
Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: evidence from ERPs and reading times.
Van Berkum JJ, Brown CM, Zwitserlood P, Kooijman V, Hagoort P., J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 31(3), 2005
PMID: 15910130
Brain activity during speaking: from syntax to phonology in 40 milliseconds.
Turennout M, Hagoort P, Brown CM., Science 280(5363), 1998
PMID: 9554845
Prosody as an interactional resource: turn-projection and overlap.
Wells B, Macfarlane S., Lang Speech 41 ( Pt 3-4)(), 1998
PMID: 10746359
An oscillator model of the timing of turn-taking.
Wilson M, Wilson TP., Psychon Bull Rev 12(6), 2005
PMID: 16615316
Animal cognition evolution of turn-taking: a bio-cognitive perspective.
Yoshida S., Okanoya K.., 2005

Export

0 Marked Publications

Open Data PUB

Web of Science

View record in Web of Science®

Sources

PMID: 24904349
PubMed | Europe PMC

Search this title in

Google Scholar