Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 449

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Event-Related Potential Components Reflect Phonological and Semantic Processing of the Terminal Word of Spoken Sentences

Connolly, John F., Phillips, Natalie A.·1994·Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Abstract

An event-related brain potential (ERP) reflecting the acoustic-phonetic process in the phonological stage of word processing was recorded to the terminal words of spoken sentences. The peak latency of this negative-going response occurred between 270 and 300 msec after the onset of the terminal word. The independence of this response (the phonological mismatch negativity, PMN) from the ERP component known to be sensitive to semantic violations (N400) was demonstrated by manipulating sentence endings so that phonemic and semantic violations occurred together or separately. Four conditions used sentences that ended with (1) the highest Cloze probability word (e.g., “The piano was out of tune.”), (2) a word having the same initial phoneme of the highest Cloze probability word but that was, in fact, semantically anomalous (e.g., “The gambler had a streak of bad luggage.”), (3) a word having an initial phoneme different from that of the highest Cloze probability word but that was, in fact, semantically appropriate (e.g., “Don caught the ball with his glove.”), or (4) a word that was semantically anomalous and, therefore, had an initial phoneme that was totally unexpected given the sentence's context (e.g., “The dog chased our cat up the queen”). Neither the PMN nor the N400 was found in the first condition. Only an N400 was observed in the second condition while only a PMN was seen in the third. Both responses were elicited in the last condition. Finally, a delayed N400 occurred to semantic violations in the second condition where the initial phoneme was identical to that of the highest Cloze probability ending. Results are discussed with regard to the Cohort model of word recognition.

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/jocn.1994.6.3.256

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cited by

See all 449

Metadata

Authors
Connolly, J. F., & Phillips, N. A.
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Publisher
MIT Press
Published
1994
Volume
6
Issue
3
Pages
256-266
ISSN
  • 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8898
OpenAlex
W2085551348
Cited by
449
References
1
FWCI
2.11
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: Event-Related Potential Components Reflect Phonological and Semantic Processing of the Terminal Word of Spoken Sentences. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1162/jocn.1994.6.3.256
The paper
Connolly, J. F., & Phillips, N. A. (1994). Event-Related Potential Components Reflect Phonological and Semantic Processing of the Terminal Word of Spoken Sentences. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1994.6.3.256

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.