The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Repair, Revision, and Complexity in Syntactic Analysis: An Electrophysiological Differentiation
Abstract
One of the core aspects of human sentence processing is the ability to detect errors and to recover from erroneous analysis through revision of ambiguous sentences and repair of ungrammatical sentences. In the present study, we used event-related potentials (ERPs) to help identify the nature of these processes by directly comparing ERPs to complex ambiguous sentence structures with and without grammatical violations, and to simpler unambiguous sentence structures with and without grammatical violations. In ambiguous sentences, preference of syntactic analysis was manipulated such that in one condition, the structures agreed with the preferred analysis, and in another condition, a nonpreferred but syntactically correct analysis (garden path) was imposed. Nonpreferred ambiguous structures require revision, whereas ungrammatical structures require repair. We found that distinct ERPs reflected different characteristics of syntactic processing. Specifically, our results are consistent with the idea that a positivity with a posterior distribution across the scalp (posterior P600) is an index of syntactic processing difficulty, including repair and revision, and that a frontally distributed positivity (frontal P600) is related to ambiguity resolution and/ or to an increase in discourse level complexity.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
On Methods in the Analysis of Profile Data
Greenhouse, S. W., & Geisser, S. (1959) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02289823 · Cited by 4,937
The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.101.4.676 · Cited by 2,259
Cairns, H. S., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (1996) · Language · doi:10.2307/416113 · Cited by 1,920
Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly
Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/0749-596x(92)90039-z · Cited by 1,856
The syntactic positive shift (sps) as an erp measure of syntactic processing
Hagoort, P., Brown, C., & Groothusen, J. (1993) · Language and Cognitive Processes · doi:10.1080/01690969308407585 · Cited by 1,260
The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty
Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E., & Holcomb, P. (2000) · Language and Cognitive Processes · doi:10.1080/016909600386084 · Cited by 993
Self-citationExpect the Unexpected: Event-related Brain Response to Morphosyntactic Violations
Coulson, S., King, J. W., & Kutas, M. (1998) · Language and Cognitive Processes · doi:10.1080/016909698386582 · Cited by 920
Osterhout, L., Holcomb, P. J., & Swinney, D. A. (1994) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037//0278-7393.20.4.786 · Cited by 669
Friederici, A. D. (1995) · Brain and Language · doi:10.1006/brln.1995.1048 · Cited by 623
Bock, K., & Miller, C. A. (1991) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(91)90003-7 · Cited by 529
Cited by
Bornkessel, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2006) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.113.4.787 · Cited by 622
Multiple effects of sentential constraint on word processing
Federmeier, K. D., Wlotko, E. W., De Ochoa-Dewald, E., & Kutas, M. (2007) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2006.06.101 · Cited by 485
Tokowicz, N., & MacWhinney, B. (2005) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263105050102 · Cited by 419
The linguistic processes underlying the P600
Gouvea, A. C., Phillips, C., Kazanina, N., & Poeppel, D. (2010) · Language and Cognitive Processes · doi:10.1080/01690960902965951 · Cited by 344
Burkhardt, P. (2006) · Brain and Language · doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2006.04.005 · Cited by 311
Metadata
- Authors
- Kaan, E., & Swaab, T. Y.
- Venue
- Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
- Publisher
- MIT Press - Journals
- Published
- 2003-01-01
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 98-110
- ISSN
- 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
- 1530-8898
- OpenAlex
- W2123968380
- Cited by
- 425
- References
- 33
- FWCI
- 5.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Repair, Revision, and Complexity in Syntactic Analysis: An Electrophysiological Differentiation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1162/089892903321107855
- The paper
- Kaan, E., & Swaab, T. Y. (2003). Repair, Revision, and Complexity in Syntactic Analysis: An Electrophysiological Differentiation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892903321107855
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
