Cited by 142Action Observation and SynchronizationNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismFace Recognition and Perception

RP and N400 ERP components reflect semantic violations in visual processing of human actions

Open access
Proverbio, Alice Mado, Riva, Federica·2009·Neuroscience Letters

Abstract

Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) were used to investigate the visual processing of actions belonging to the typical human repertoire. Two hundred and sixty coloured pictures representing persons differing in number, age and gender, engaged in simple actions, were presented to 23 right-handed students. Perception of meaningful actions (e.g., young woman trying shoes in shop) was contrasted with perception of actions lacking an understandable goal (e.g., businesswoman balancing on one foot in desert). The results indicated early recognition of comprehensible behaviour in the form of an enhanced posterior "recognition potential" (RP) (N250), which was followed by a larger negativity (N400) in response to incongruent actions. The results suggest that incoming visual information regarding human gestures is processed similarly to linguistic inputs from a conceptual point of view, thus eliciting a posterior RP when the action code is visually recognized and comprehended, and a later N400 when the action is not recognized or is difficult to integrate with previous knowledge.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neulet.2009.05.012

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • More negative N450 amplitudes were reported for incongruent set-ups and unexpected actions.

    “More negative N450 amplitudes were reported for incongruent set-ups and unexpected actions (Proverbio & Riva, 2009;Wu & Coulson, 2005; see also Amoruso et al., 2013).”

    From Interplay of self-other distinction and cognitive control mechanisms in a social automatic imitation task: An ERP study (2021) · cites this paper as Proverbio & Riva, 2009

    The results passage (page not provided) reports a more negative N400 for incongruent than congruent actions (−3.35 versus −1.84 µV). The paper measures this response at 350–500 ms and also calls it an action-related N420, but it does not report an N450 or a separate finding for incongruent set-ups. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The N450 is not only tied to cognitive conflict/action monitoring, but has also been associated with congruency processing during action observation and unexpected socially inappropriate actions.

    “Importantly, the N450 is not only tied to cognitive conflict/ action monitoring, but has also been associated with congruency processing during action observation (e.g., whether gestures and a given context match or not, Wu & Coulson, 2005), and unexpected socially inappropriate actions (Proverbio & Riva, 2009).”

    From Interplay of self-other distinction and cognitive control mechanisms in a social automatic imitation task: An ERP study (2021) · cites this paper as Proverbio & Riva, 2009

    In “RP and N400 ERP components reflect semantic violations in visual processing of human actions” (page unavailable), the authors report a response to incongruent actions, some of which were socially inappropriate. That supports the portion attributed to Proverbio and Riva, but the paper identifies the response as N400 or action-related N420, not N450. The gesture–context example is attributed to Wu and Coulson, not to this source. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 37 · Cited by 142

Authors
Proverbio, A. M., & Riva, F.
Affiliations
University of Milano-Bicocca (IT)
Corresponding author
Proverbio, Alice Mado
Venue
Neuroscience Letters
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-08
Volume
459
Issue
3
Pages
142-146
ISSN
0304-3940 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1973751534
Cited by
142
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
FWCI
4.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuroscience Letters (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BOA (University of Milano-Bicocca) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
Keywords
action perception, semantic violation, N400, N250, event-related potentials, visual word recognition
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Brain, Cognition, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Female, Humans, Male, Photic Stimulation, Semantics, Social Perception, Visual Perception, Young Adult

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