English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Journal Article

"Capacity" reconsidered: Interindividual differences in language comprehension and individual alpha frequency

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons19563

Bornkessel,  Ina
Department Neuropsychology, MPI for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons19636

Fiebach,  Christian J.
Department Neuropsychology, MPI for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons19643

Friederici,  Angela D.
Department Neuropsychology, MPI for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Max Planck Society;

External Resource
No external resources are shared
Fulltext (restricted access)
There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.
Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts stored in PuRe
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Bornkessel, I., Fiebach, C. J., Friederici, A. D., & Schlesewsky, M. (2004). "Capacity" reconsidered: Interindividual differences in language comprehension and individual alpha frequency. Experimental Psychology, 51(4), 279-289. doi:10.1027/1618-3169.51.4.279.


Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0010-A31F-4
Abstract
The influence of interindividual differences in cognitive mechanisms on language comprehension remains controversial not only due to conflicting experimental findings, but also in view of the difficulty associated with determining which measure should be used in participant classification. Here, we address the latter problem by proposing that an electrophysiological measure, individual alpha frequency (IAF), may be a suitable means of classifying interindividual differences in sentence processing. Interindividual differences in IAF have been shown to correlate with performance on memory tasks and speed of information processing. In two experiments using event-related brain potentials (ERPs), IAF-based participant groups differed systematically with regard to the processing of ambiguous sentences such that the low-IAF group showed a sustained positivity in the ambiguous region, while the high-IAF group did not. These interindividual differences were independent of whether the ambiguity was syntactic (Experiment 1) or sentence-level semantic (Experiment 2). Moreover, they were reliable only when participants were classified according to IAF, but not in classifications based on reading span, speed of processing (reaction time), or accuracy of processing (error rate).