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
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.
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
ASPECTS OF THE THEORY OF SYNTAX
Chomsky, N. (1964) · doi:10.21236/ad0616323 · Cited by 13,587
A default mode of brain function
Raichle, M. E., MacLeod, A. M., Snyder, A. Z., Powers, W. J., Gusnard, D. A., & Shulman, G. L. (2001) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.98.2.676 · Cited by 12,190
Cortical Surface-Based Analysis
Dale, A. M., Fischl, B., & Sereno, M. I. (1999) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.1998.0395 · Cited by 10,910
Self-citationCortical Surface-Based Analysis
Fischl, B., Sereno, M. I., & Dale, A. M. (1999) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.1998.0396 · Cited by 6,147
Self-citationTalairach, J., Tournoux, P., & Rayport, M. (1988) · Thieme eBooks · Cited by 5,058
Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating?
Donchin, E., & Coles, M. G. H. (1988) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00058027 · Cited by 3,585
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
Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1984) · Nature · doi:10.1038/307161a0 · Cited by 2,218
Dale, A. M., & Sereno, M. I. (1993) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.1993.5.2.162 · Cited by 2,003
Self-citationCommon blood flow changes across visual tasks: II. Decreases in cerebral cortex
Shulman, G. L., Fiez, J. A., Corbetta, M., Buckner, R. L., Miezin, F. M., Raichle, M. E., & Petersen, S. E. (1997) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.1997.9.5.648 · Cited by 1,890
Cited by
The brain basis of language processing: from structure to function.
Friederici, A. D. (2011) · Physiological Reviews · doi:10.1152/physrev.00006.2011 · Cited by 2,140
Bar, M. (2004) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn1476 · Cited by 1,613
Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax
Kuperberg, G. R. (2007) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2006.12.063 · Cited by 1,041
Self-citationNew method for fMRI investigations of language: defining ROIs functionally in individual subjects
Fedorenko, E., Hsieh, P.-J., Nieto-Castañón, A., Whitfield-Gabrieli, S., & Kanwisher, N. (2010) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.00032.2010 · Cited by 686
Four central questions about prediction in language processing
Huettig, F. (2015) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2015.02.014 · Cited by 405
Metadata
- Authors
- Kuperberg, G. R., Holcomb, P. J., Sitnikova, T., Greve, D., Dale, A. M., & Caplan, D.
- Venue
- Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
- Publisher
- MIT Press - Journals
- 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.