Cited by 19Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismPhonetics and Phonology ResearchReading and Literacy Development

Perception and Bias in the Processing of Compound versus Phrasal Stress: Evidence from Event-Related Brain Potentials

McCauley, Stewart M, Hestvik, Arild, Vogel, Irene·2013·Language and Speech

Abstract

Previous research using picture/word matching tasks has demonstrated a tendency to incorrectly interpret phrasally stressed strings as compounds. Using event-related potentials, we sought to determine whether this pattern stems from poor perceptual sensitivity to the compound/phrasal stress distinction, or from a post-perceptual bias in behavioral response selection. A secondary aim was to gain insight into the role played by contrastive stress patterns in online sentence comprehension. The behavioral results replicated previous findings of a preference for compounds, but the electrophysiological data suggested a robust sensitivity to both stress patterns. When incongruent with the context, both compound and phrasal stress elicited a sustained left-lateralized negativity. Moreover, incongruent compound stress elicited a centro-parietal negativity (N400), while incongruent phrasal stress elicited a late posterior positivity (P600). We conclude that the previous findings of a preference for compounds are due to response selection bias, and not a lack of perceptual sensitivity. The present results complement previous evidence for the immediate use of meter in semantic processing, as well as evidence for late interactions between prosodic and syntactic information.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0023830911434277

Cites

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 58 · Cited by 19

Authors
McCauley, S. M., Hestvik, A., & Vogel, I.
Affiliations
  • Cornell University (US)
  • University of Delaware (US)
Venue
Language and Speech
Published
2012-02-22
Volume
56
Issue
1
Pages
23-44
ISSN
  • 0023-8309 (ISSN-L)
  • 1756-6053
OpenAlex
W2127831866
Cited by
19
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
0.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Language and Speech (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
Keywords
combined stress, phrasal stress, prosody, N400, P600, sentence comprehension, prosody-syntax interaction, meter, event-related potentials
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Auditory Cortex, Brain Mapping, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Female, Humans, Male, Parietal Lobe, Phonetics, Psycholinguistics, Semantics, Speech Perception, Event-Related Potentials, P300, 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