Deutsch
 
Hilfe Datenschutzhinweis Impressum
  DetailsucheBrowse

Datensatz

 
 
DownloadE-Mail
  Syntactic parsing preferences and their on-line revisions: a spatio-temporal analysis of event-related brain potentials

Friederici, A. D., Mecklinger, A., Spencer, K. M., Steinhauer, K., & Donchin, E. (2001). Syntactic parsing preferences and their on-line revisions: a spatio-temporal analysis of event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Brain Research, 11(2), 305-323. doi:10.1016/S0926-6410(00)00065-3.

Item is

Externe Referenzen

einblenden:

Urheber

einblenden:
ausblenden:
 Urheber:
Friederici, Angela D.1, Autor           
Mecklinger, Axel1, Autor           
Spencer, K. M., Autor
Steinhauer, Karsten2, Autor           
Donchin, E., Autor
Affiliations:
1MPI of Cognitive Neuroscience (Leipzig, -2003), The Prior Institutes, MPI for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Max Planck Society, ou_634574              
2MPI for Psychological Research (Munich, -2003), The Prior Institutes, MPI for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Max Planck Society, ou_634573              

Inhalt

einblenden:
ausblenden:
Schlagwörter: Neural basis of behavior, Cognition; Event-related potential; Language processing; Syntactic ambiguity; Spatio-temporal principal component analysis; P600/SPS, P300; ERP Sub-component
 Zusammenfassung: The present study investigates the processes involved in the recovery from temporarily ambiguous garden-path sentences. Event-related brain potentials (ERP) were recorded while subjects read German subject–object ambiguous relative and complement clauses. As both clause types are initially analyzed as subject-first structures, object-first structures require a revision which is more difficult for complement than for relative clauses. The hypothesis is tested that the revision process consists of two sub-processes, namely diagnosis and actual reanalysis. Applying a spatio-temporal principal component analysis to the ERP data, distinct positive sub-components presumably reflecting different sub-processes could be identified in the time range of the P300 and P600. It will be argued that the P600 is not a monolithic component, and that different subprocesses may be involved at varying time points depending on the type of garden-path sentence.

Details

einblenden:
ausblenden:
Sprache(n): eng - English
 Datum: 2001
 Publikationsstatus: Erschienen
 Seiten: -
 Ort, Verlag, Ausgabe: -
 Inhaltsverzeichnis: -
 Art der Begutachtung: -
 Identifikatoren: eDoc: 238968
ISI: 000167882900011
Anderer: P6535
DOI: 10.1016/S0926-6410(00)00065-3
 Art des Abschluß: -

Veranstaltung

einblenden:

Entscheidung

einblenden:

Projektinformation

einblenden:

Quelle 1

einblenden:
ausblenden:
Titel: Cognitive Brain Research
  Andere : Cognit. Brain Res.
Genre der Quelle: Zeitschrift
 Urheber:
Affiliations:
Ort, Verlag, Ausgabe: Amsterdam : Elsevier
Seiten: - Band / Heft: 11 (2) Artikelnummer: - Start- / Endseite: 305 - 323 Identifikator: ISSN: 0926-6410
CoNE: https://pure.mpg.de/cone/journals/resource/954925385137_2