CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismMultisensory perception and integrationReading and Literacy Development

Cross-modal symbolic processing can elicit either an N2 or a protracted N2/N400 response

Griffiths, Oren, Le Pelley, Mike E., Jack, Bradley N., Luque, David, Whitford, Thomas J.·2016·Psychophysiology
DOI 10.1111/psyp.12649
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A cross-modal symbolic paradigm was used to elicit EEG activity related to semantic incongruence. Twenty-five undergraduate students viewed pairings of visual lexical cues (e.g., DOG) with congruent (50% of trials) or incongruent (50%) auditory nonlexical stimuli (animal vocalizations; e.g., sound of a dog woofing or a cat meowing). In one condition, many different pairs of congruent/incongruent stimuli were shown, whereas in a second condition only two pairs of stimuli were repeatedly shown. A typical N400-like pattern of incongruence-related activity (including activity in the N2 time window) was evident in the condition using many stimuli, whereas the incongruence-related activity in the two-stimuli condition was confined to differential N2-like activity. A supplementary analysis excluded stimulus characteristics as the source of this differential activity between conditions. We found that a single individual performing a fixed task can demonstrate either a protracted N400-like pattern of activity or a more temporally focused N2-like pattern of activity in response to the same stimulus, which suggests that the N2 may be a precursor to the protracted N400 response.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/psyp.12649

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • A likely explanation for the observed P2 and P3 results involves the N2 component, whose spatial and temporal distribution typically overlaps with that of the P2.

    “A likely explanation for the observed results in these later components involves another ERP component, the N2, whose spatial and temporal distribution typically overlaps with that of the P2 (Griffiths et al., 2016).”

    From Neurophysiological evidence of efference copies to inner speech (2017) · cites this paper as Griffiths et al., 2016

  • In the two inner speech conditions of the present study, participants made a mental response, possibly a template-matching response about whether the audible phoneme matched their inner phoneme, which they did not make in the Passive condition.

    “We suggest that, in the two inner speech conditions of our study, participants made a mental response – possibly a ‘template-matching response’ along the lines of whether the audible phoneme matched their inner phoneme (Griffiths et al., 2016) – which they did not make in the Passive condition.”

    From Neurophysiological evidence of efference copies to inner speech (2017) · cites this paper as Griffiths et al., 2016

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Griffiths, O., Le Pelley, M. E., Jack, B. N., Luque, D., & Whitford, T. J.
Affiliations
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • School of Psychology UNSW Australia Sydney Australia
Corresponding author
Griffiths, Oren
ORCID
Venue
Psychophysiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-03-23
Volume
53
Issue
7
Pages
1044-1053
ISSN
  • 0048-5772 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8986
DOI
10.1111/psyp.12649
OpenAlex
W2312011197
Cited by
3
References
31
Citations by year
2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
0.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Psychophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Flinders Academic Commons (Flinders University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Flinders Academic Commons (Flinders University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Australian Research Council (DP140104394, DE150100667, FT100100260)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
Keywords
semantic incongruence, N2, N400, event-related potentials, lexical-semantic processing, animal vocalizations, congruency effect, stimulus familiarity
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Adolescent, Adult, Auditory Perception, Cerebral Cortex, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Humans, Photic Stimulation, Semantics, 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