Cited by 625Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismReading and Literacy DevelopmentSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation

Getting real about Semantic Illusions: Rethinking the functional role of the P600 in language comprehension

Open access
Brouwer, Harm, Fitz, Hartmut, Hoeks, John·2012·Brain Research

Abstract

In traditional theories of language comprehension, syntactic and semantic processing are inextricably linked. This assumption has been challenged by the 'semantic illusion effect' found in studies using event related brain potentials. Semantically anomalous sentences did not produce the expected increase in N400 amplitude but rather one in P600 amplitude. To explain these findings, complex models have been devised in which an independent semantic processing stream can arrive at a sentence interpretation that may differ from the interpretation prescribed by the syntactic structure of the sentence. We review five such multi-stream models and argue that they do not account for the full range of relevant results because they assume that the amplitude of the N400 indexes some form of semantic integration. Based on recent evidence we argue that N400 amplitude might reflect the retrieval of lexical information from memory. On this view, the absence of an N400-effect in semantic illusion sentences can be explained in terms of priming. Furthermore, we suggest that semantic integration, which has previously been linked to the N400 component, might be reflected in the P600 instead. When combined, these functional interpretations result in a single-stream account of language processing that can explain all of the Semantic Illusion data.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brainres.2012.01.055

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 142 · Cited by 625

Authors
Brouwer, H., Fitz, H., & Hoeks, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Groningen (NL)
  • Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics (NL)
Corresponding author
Brouwer, Harm
Venue
Brain Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-03
Volume
1446
Pages
127-143
ISSN
0006-8993 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2150104820
Cited by
625
References
142
Citations by year
2026: 42 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 75 · 2018: 43 · 2017: 89 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 38 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Brain Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) (10-26, 275-89-008)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Keywords
P600, N400, language comprehension, semantic integration, syntactic-semantic interaction, word retrieval, priming, event-related potentials, anomalous sentences
MeSH terms
Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Humans, Illusions, Semantics, Comprehension

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review