Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 293

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 86 of the 86 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Distinct Patterns of Neural Modulation during the Processing of Conceptual and Syntactic Anomalies

Kuperberg, Gina R., Holcomb, Phillip J., Sitnikova, Tatiana, Greve, Douglas, Dale, Anders M., Caplan, David·2003·Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Abstract

The aim of this study was to gain further insights into how the brain distinguishes between meaning and syntax during language comprehension. Participants read and made plausibility judgments on sentences that were plausible, morpho-syntactically anomalous, or pragmatically anomalous. In an event-related potential (ERP) experiment, morphosyntactic and pragmatic violations elicited significant P600 and N400 effects, respectively, replicating previous ERP studies that have established qualitative differences in processing conceptually and syntactic anomalies. Our main focus was a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study in which the same subjects read the same sentences presented in the same pseudorandomized sequence while performing the same task as in the ERP experiment. Rapid-presentation event-related fMRI methods allowed us to estimate the hemodynamic response at successive temporal windows as the sentences unfolded word by word, without assumptions about the shape of the underlying response function. Relative to nonviolated sentences, the pragmatic anomalies were associated with an increased hemodynamic response in left temporal and inferior frontal regions and a decreased response in the right medial parietal cortex. Relative to nonviolated sentences, the morphosyntactic anomalies were associated with an increased response in bilateral medial and lateral parietal regions and a decreased response in left temporal and inferior frontal regions. Thus, overlapping neural networks were modulated in opposite directions to the two types of anomaly. These fMRI findings document both qualitative and quantitative differences in how the brain distinguishes between these two types of anomalies. This suggests that morphosyntactic and pragmatic information can be processed in different ways but by the same neural systems.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/089892903321208204

Cites

86 of 86 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 86 references

Cited by

See all 293

Metadata

Authors
Kuperberg, G. R., Holcomb, P. J., Sitnikova, T., Greve, D., Dale, A. M., & Caplan, D.
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Published
2003-02
Volume
15
Issue
2
Pages
272-293
ISSN
  • 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8898
OpenAlex
W2146042128
Cited by
293
References
86
FWCI
4.85
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: Distinct Patterns of Neural Modulation during the Processing of Conceptual and Syntactic Anomalies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1162/089892903321208204
The paper
Kuperberg, G. R., Holcomb, P. J., Sitnikova, T., Greve, D., Dale, A. M., & Caplan, D. (2003). Distinct Patterns of Neural Modulation during the Processing of Conceptual and Syntactic Anomalies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892903321208204

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.