Neuro Linguistics

7/21/2019 Neuro Linguistics

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/neuro-linguistics 1/19

Surface of the human brain, with

Brodmann areas numbered

An image of neural pathways in

the brain taken using diffusion

tensor imaging

NeurolinguisticsFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neurolinguistics is the study of the neural mechanismsin the human brain that control the comprehension,

production, and acquisition of language. As aninterdisciplinary field, neurolinguistics drawsmethodology and theory from fields such asneuroscience, linguistics, cognitive science,neurobiology, communication disorders,neuropsychology, and computer science. Researchersare drawn to the field from a variety of backgrounds,bringing along a variety of experimental techniques aswell as widely varying theoretical perspectives. Muchwork in neurolinguistics is informed by models in

psycholinguistics and theoretical linguistics, and isfocused on investigating how the brain can implementthe processes that theoretical and psycholinguisticspropose are necessary in producing andcomprehending language. Neurolinguists study thephysiological mechanisms by which the brainprocesses information related to language, andevaluate linguistic and psycholinguistic theories, usingaphasiology, brain imaging, electrophysiology, andcomputer modeling.

Contents

1 History

2 Neurolinguistics as a discipline

2.1 Interaction with other fields

2.2 Topics considered

3 Technology used3.1 Hemodynamic

3.2 Electrophysiological

4 Experimental design

4.1 Experimental techniques

4.2 Subject tasks

5 Further reading

6 Notes

7 References

Neurolinguistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurolinguistics

1 de 19 15/3/15 17:57



Broca's area and Wernicke's

area

8 External links

History

Neurolinguistics is historically rooted in the developmentin the 19th century of aphasiology, the study of linguisticdeficits (aphasias) occurring as the result of brain

damage.[1] Aphasiology attempts to correlate structure tofunction by analyzing the effect of brain injuries on

language processing.[2] One of the first people to draw aconnection between a particular brain area and language

processing was Paul Broca,[1] a French surgeon whoconducted autopsies on numerous individuals who had

speaking deficiencies, and found that most of them hadbrain damage (or lesions ) on the left frontal lobe, in anarea now known as Broca's area. Phrenologists had made the claim in the early 19thcentury that different brain regions carried out different functions and that language wasmostly controlled by the frontal regions of the brain, but Broca's research was possibly the

first to offer empirical evidence for such a relationship,[3][4] and has been described as

"epoch-making"[5] and "pivotal"[3] to the fields of neurolinguistics and cognitive science.Later, Carl Wernicke, after whom Wernicke's area is named, proposed that different areasof the brain were specialized for different linguistic tasks, with Broca's area handling themotor production of speech, and Wernicke's area handling auditory speech

comprehension.[1][2] The work of Broca and Wernicke established the field of aphasiologyand the idea that language can be studied through examining physical characteristics of

the brain.[4] Early work in aphasiology also benefited from the early twentieth-centurywork of Korbinian Brodmann, who "mapped" the surface of the brain, dividing it up into

numbered areas based on each area's cytoarchitecture (cell structure) and function;[6]

these areas, known as Brodmann areas, are still widely used in neuroscience today.[7]

The coining of the term "neurolinguistics" has been attributed to Harry Whitaker, who

founded the Journal of Neurolinguistics in 1985.[8][9]

Although aphasiology is the historical core of neurolinguistics, in recent years the field hasbroadened considerably, thanks in part to the emergence of new brain imagingtechnologies (such as PET and fMRI) and time-sensitive electrophysiological techniques(EEG and MEG), which can highlight patterns of brain activation as people engage in

various language tasks;[1][10][11] electrophysiological techniques, in particular, emerged asa viable method for the study of language in 1980 with the discovery of the N400, a brain

response shown to be sensitive to semantic issues in language comprehension.[12][13] TheN400 was the first language-relevant brain response to be identified, and since itsdiscovery EEG and MEG have become increasingly widely used for conducting language

research.[14]


2 de 19 15/3/15 17:57



Neurolinguistics as a discipline

Interaction with other fields

Neurolinguistics is closely related to the field of psycholinguistics, which seeks to elucidate

the cognitive mechanisms of language by employing the traditional techniques of experimental psychology; today, psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic theories often inform

one another, and there is much collaboration between the two fields.[13][15]

Much work in neurolinguistics involves testing and evaluating theories put forth bypsycholinguists and theoretical linguists. In general, theoretical linguists propose modelsto explain the structure of language and how language information is organized,psycholinguists propose models and algorithms to explain how language information isprocessed in the mind, and neurolinguists analyze brain activity to infer how biologicalstructures (populations and networks of neurons) carry out those psycholinguistic

processing algorithms.[16] For example, experiments in sentence processing have used theELAN, N400, and P600 brain responses to examine how physiological brain responsesreflect the different predictions of sentence processing models put forth by

psycholinguists, such as Janet Fodor and Lyn Frazier's "serial" model,[17] and Theo Vosse

and Gerard Kempen's "Unification model."[15] Neurolinguists can also make newpredictions about the structure and organization of language based on insights about thephysiology of the brain, by "generalizing from the knowledge of neurological structures to

language structure."[18]

Neurolinguistics research is carried out in all the major areas of linguistics; the main

linguistic subfields, and how neurolinguistics addresses them, are given in the table below.


3 de 19 15/3/15 17:57



Subfield Description Research questions in neurolinguistics

Phoneticsthe study of speech

sounds

how the brain extracts speech sounds

from an acoustic signal, how the brain

separates speech sounds from

background noise

Phonology

the study of how sounds

are organized in a

language

how the phonological system of a

particular language is represented in the

brain

Morphology

and lexicology

the study of how words

are structured and stored

in the mental lexicon

how the brain stores and accesses words

that a person knows

Syntax

the study of how

multiple-word utterancesare constructed

how the brain combines words into

constituents and sentences; how structural

and semantic information is used in

understanding sentencesSemanticsthe study of how meaning

is encoded in language

Topics considered

Neurolinguistics research investigates several topics, including where languageinformation is processed, how language processing unfolds over time, how brain

structures are related to language acquisition and learning, and how neurophysiology cancontribute to speech and language pathology.

Localizations of language processes

Much work in neurolinguistics has, like Broca's and Wernicke's early studies, investigatedthe locations of specific language "modules" within the brain. Research questions include

what course language information follows through the brain as it is processed,[19] whether

or not particular areas specialize in processing particular sorts of information,[20] how

different brain regions interact with one another in language processing,[21]

and how thelocations of brain activation differs when a subject is producing or perceiving a language

other than his or her first language.[22][23][24]

Time course of language processes

Another area of neurolinguistics literature involves the use of electrophysiological

techniques to analyze the rapid processing of language in time.[1] The temporal orderingof specific patterns of in brain activity may reflect discrete computational processes thatthe brain undergoes during language processing; for example, one neurolinguistic theory

of sentence parsing proposes that three brain responses (the ELAN, N400, and P600) are


4 de 19 15/3/15 17:57



products of three different steps in syntactic and semantic processing.[25]

Language acquisition

Another topic is the relationship between brain structures and language acquisition.[26]

Research in first language acquisition has already established that infants from all linguisticenvironments go through similar and predictable stages (such as babbling), and someneurolinguistics research attempts to find correlations between stages of language

development and stages of brain development,[27] while other research investigates thephysical changes (known as neuroplasticity) that the brain undergoes during second

language acquisition, when adults learn a new language.[28]

Language pathology

Neurolinguistic techniques are also used to study disorders and breakdowns in

language—such as aphasia and dyslexia—and how they relate to physical characteristics

of the brain.[23][27]

Technology used

Since one of the focuses of this field is the testing of linguistic and psycholinguisticmodels, the technology used for experiments is highly relevant to the study of neurolinguistics. Modern brain imaging techniques have contributed greatly to a growing

understanding of the anatomical organization of linguistic functions.[1][23] Brain imaging

methods used in neurolinguistics may be classified into hemodynamic methods,electrophysiological methods, and methods that stimulate the cortex directly.

Hemodynamic

Hemodynamic techniques take advantage of the fact that when an area of the brain worksat a task, blood is sent to supply that area with oxygen (in what is known as the Blood

Oxygen Level-Dependent, or BOLD, response).[29] Such techniques include PET and fMRI.These techniques provide high spatial resolution, allowing researchers to pinpoint the

location of activity within the brain;[1]

temporal resolution (or information about the timingof brain activity), on the other hand, is poor, since the BOLD response happens much

more slowly than language processing.[11][30] In addition to demonstrating which parts of

the brain may subserve specific language tasks or computations,[20][25] hemodynamicmethods have also been used to demonstrate how the structure of the brain's languagearchitecture and the distribution of language-related activation may change over time, as

a function of linguistic exposure.[22][28]

In addition to PET and fMRI, which show which areas of the brain are activated by certaintasks, researchers also use diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), which shows the neural

pathways that connect different brain areas,[31] thus providing insight into how different


5 de 19 15/3/15 17:57



Images of the brainrecorded with PET

(top) and fMRI

(bottom). In the PET

image, the red areas

are the most active. In

the fMRI image, the

yellowest areas are the

areas that show the

greatest difference in

activation betweentwo tasks (watching a

moving stimulus,

versus watching a

black screen.

Brain waves recorded using EEG

areas interact. Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) is

another hemodynamic method used in language tasks.[32]

Electrophysiological

Electrophysiologicaltechniques take advantageof the fact that when a groupof neurons in the brain firetogether, they create anelectric dipole or current.The technique of EEGmeasures this electricalcurrent using sensors on thescalp, while MEG measuresthe magnetic fields that are

generated by these

currents.[33] In addition tothese non-invasive methods,electrocorticography has also

been used to study language processing. These techniques areable to measure brain activity from one millisecond to the next,providing excellent temporal resolution, which is important instudying processes that take place as quickly as language

comprehension and production.[33] On the other hand, the

location of brain activity can be difficult to identify in EEG;[30][34]

consequently, this technique is used primarily to how languageprocesses are carried out, rather than where. Research usingEEG and MEG generally focuses on event-related potentials

(ERPs),[30] which are distinct brain responses (generally realizedas negative or positive peaks on a graph of neural activity)elicited in response to a particular stimulus. Studies using ERPmay focus on each ERP's latency (how long after the stimulus the ERP begins or peaks),amplitude (how high or low the peak is), or topography (where on the scalp the ERP

response is picked up by sensors).[35] Some important and common ERP components

include the N400 (a negativity occurring at a latency of about 400 milliseconds),[30] themismatch negativity,[36] the early left anterior negativity (a negativity occurring at an early

latency and a front-left topography),[37] the P600,[14][38] and the lateralized readiness

potential.[39]

Experimental design

Experimental techniques

Neurolinguists employ a variety of experimental techniques in order to use brain imaging


6 de 19 15/3/15 17:57



to draw conclusions about how language is represented and processed in the brain. Thesetechniques include the subtraction paradigm, mismatch design, violation-based studies,various forms of priming, and direct stimulation of the brain.

Subtraction

Many language studies, particularly in fMRI, use the subtraction paradigm,[40] in whichbrain activation in a task thought to involve some aspect of language processing iscompared against activation in a baseline task thought to involve similar non-linguisticprocesses but not to involve the linguistic process. For example, activations whileparticipants read words may be compared to baseline activations while participants readstrings of random letters (in attempt to isolate activation related to lexicalprocessing—the processing of real words), or activations while participants readsyntactically complex sentences may be compared to baseline activations whileparticipants read simpler sentences.

Mismatch paradigm

The mismatch negativity (MMN) is a rigorously documented ERP component frequently

used in neurolinguistic experiments.[36][41] It is an electrophysiological response thatoccurs in the brain when a subject hears a "deviant" stimulus in a set of perceptually

identical "standards" (as in the sequence s s s s s s s d d s s s s s s d s s s s s d ).[42][43] Sincethe MMN is elicited only in response to a rare "oddball" stimulus in a set of other stimulithat are perceived to be the same, it has been used to test how speakers perceive sounds

and organize stimuli categorically.[44][45] For example, a landmark study by Colin Phillips

and colleagues used the mismatch negativity as evidence that subjects, when presentedwith a series of speech sounds with acoustic parameters, perceived all the sounds aseither /t/ or /d/ in spite of the acoustic variability, suggesting that the human brain hasrepresentations of abstract phonemes—in other words, the subjects were "hearing" not

the specific acoustic features, but only the abstract phonemes.[42] In addition, themismatch negativity has been used to study syntactic processing and the recognition of

word category.[36][41][46]

Violation-based

Many studies in neurolinguistics take advantage of anomalies or violations of syntactic orsemantic rules in experimental stimuli, and analyzing the brain responses elicited when asubject encounters these violations. For example, sentences beginning with phrases such

as *the garden was on the worked ,[47] which violates an English phrase structure rule,

often elicit a brain response called the early left anterior negativity (ELAN).[37] Violation

techniques have been in use since at least 1980,[37] when Kutas and Hillyard first reported

ERP evidence that semantic violations elicited an N400 effect.[48] Using similar methods, in

1992, Lee Osterhout first reported the P600 response to syntactic anomalies.[49] Violationdesigns have also been used for hemodynamic studies (fMRI and PET): Embick andcolleagues, for example, used grammatical and spelling violations to investigate the


7 de 19 15/3/15 17:57



An event-related potential

location of syntactic processing in the brain using

fMRI.[20] Another common use of violation designs isto combine two kinds of violations in the samesentence and thus make predictions about howdifferent language processes interact with oneanother; this type of crossing-violation study has been

used extensively to investigate how syntactic andsemantic processes interact while people read or hear

sentences.[50][51]

Priming

In psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics, priming refers to the phenomenon whereby asubject can recognize a word more quickly if he or she has recently been presented with a

word that is similar in meaning[52] or morphological makeup (i.e., composed of similar

parts).[53] If a subject is presented with a "target" word such as doctor and then a "prime"word such as nurse, if the subject has a faster-than-usual response time to nurse then theexperimenter may assume that word nurse in the brain had already been accessed when

the word doctor was accessed.[54] Priming is used to investigate a wide variety of

questions about how words are stored and retrieved in the brain[53][55] and how

structurally complex sentences are processed.[56]

Stimulation

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), a new noninvasive[57] technique for studyingbrain activity, uses powerful magnetic fields that are applied to the brain from outside the

head.[58] It is a method of exciting or interrupting brain activity in a specific and controlledlocation, and thus is able to imitate aphasic symptoms while giving the researcher more

control over exactly which parts of the brain will be examined.[58] As such, it is a lessinvasive alternative to direct cortical stimulation, which can be used for similar types of research but requires that the subject's scalp be removed, and is thus only used onindividuals who are already undergoing a major brain operation (such as individuals

undergoing surgery for epilepsy).[59] The logic behind TMS and direct cortical stimulationis similar to the logic behind aphasiology: if a particular language function is impairedwhen a specific region of the brain is knocked out, then that region must be somehowimplicated in that language function. Few neurolinguistic studies to date have used

TMS;[1] direct cortical stimulation and cortical recording (recording brain activity usingelectrodes placed directly on the brain) have been used with macaque monkeys to make

predictions about the behavior of human brains.[60]

Subject tasks

In many neurolinguistics experiments, subjects do not simply sit and listen to or watch

stimuli, but also are instructed to perform some sort of task in response to the stimuli.[61]


8 de 19 15/3/15 17:57



Subjects perform these tasks while recordings (electrophysiological or hemodynamic) are

being taken, usually in order to ensure that they are paying attention to the stimuli.[62] Atleast one study has suggested that the task the subject does has an effect on the brain

responses and the results of the experiment.[63]

Lexical decision

The lexical decision task involves subjects seeing or hearing an isolated word andanswering whether or not it is a real word. It is frequently used in priming studies, sincesubjects are known to make a lexical decision more quickly if a word has been primed by a

related word (as in "doctor" priming "nurse").[52][53][54]

Grammaticality judgment, acceptability judgment

Many studies, especially violation-based studies, have subjects make a decision about the

"acceptability" (usually grammatical acceptability or semantic acceptability) of stimuli.[63][64][65][66][67] Such a task is often used to "ensure that subjects [are] reading thesentences attentively and that they [distinguish] acceptable from unacceptable sentences

in the way the [experimenter] expect[s] them to do."[65]

Experimental evidence has shown that the instructions given to subjects in anacceptability judgment task can influence the subjects' brain responses to stimuli. Oneexperiment showed that when subjects were instructed to judge the "acceptability" of sentences they did not show an N400 brain response (a response commonly associatedwith semantic processing), but that they did show that response when instructed to ignore

grammatical acceptability and only judge whether or not the sentences "made sense."[63]

Probe verification

Some studies use a "probe verification" task rather than an overt acceptability judgment;in this paradigm, each experimental sentence is followed by a "probe word", and subjects

must answer whether or not the probe word had appeared in the sentence.[54][65] Thistask, like the acceptability judgment task, ensures that subjects are reading or listeningattentively, but may avoid some of the additional processing demands of acceptability

udgments, and may be used no matter what type of violation is being presented in thestudy.[54]

Truth-value judgment

Subjects may be instructed not to judge whether or not the sentence is grammaticallyacceptable or logical, but whether the proposition expressed by the sentence is true or

false. This task is commonly used in psycholinguistic studies of child language.[68][69]

Active distraction and double-task


9 de 19 15/3/15 17:57



Some experiments give subjects a "distractor" task to ensure that subjects are notconsciously paying attention to the experimental stimuli; this may be done to test whethera certain computation in the brain is carried out automatically, regardless of whether thesubject devotes attentional resources to it. For example, one study had subjects listen tonon-linguistic tones (long beeps and buzzes) in one ear and speech in the other ear, andinstructed subjects to press a button when they perceived a change in the tone; this

supposedly caused subjects not to pay explicit attention to grammatical violations in thespeech stimuli. The subjects showed a mismatch response (MMN) anyway, suggesting thatthe processing of the grammatical errors was happening automatically, regardless of

attention[36]—or at least that subjects were unable to consciously separate their attentionfrom the speech stimuli.

Another related form of experiment is the double-task experiment, in which a subjectmust perform an extra task (such as sequential finger-tapping or articulating nonsensesyllables) while responding to linguistic stimuli; this kind of experiment has been used to

investigate the use of working memory in language processing.[70]

Further reading

Ahlsén, Elisabeth (2006). Introduction to Neurolinguistics (http://books.google.com

/?id=jVR1AAAACAAJ&dq=Introduction+to+Neurolinguistics). John Benjamins

Publishing Company. p. 212. ISBN 90-272-3233-4.

Moro, Andrea (2008). The Boundaries of Babel. The Brain and the Enigma of

Impossible Languages (http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&

tid=11488). MIT Press. p. 257. ISBN 978-0-262-13498-9.

Stemmer, Brigitte; Harry A. Whitaker (1998). Handbook of Neurolinguistics

(http://books.google.com/?id=4tkFAAAACAAJ&

dq=Handbook+of+Neurolinguistics). Academic Press. p. 788. ISBN 0-12-666055-7.

Some relevant journals include the Journal of Neurolinguistics (http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/866/description#description) and Brain andLanguage (http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/622799/description#description). Both are subscription access journals, though some abstracts

may be generally available.

Notes

Phillips, Colin; Kuniyoshi L. Sakai (2005).

"Language and the brain"

(http://mind.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp

/Sakai_Lab_files/Staff/KLS_Paper

/KLS2005.pdf). Yearbook of Science and

Technology . McGraw-Hill Publishers.

1. pp. 166–169.


10 de 19 15/3/15 17:57



Wi!niewski, Kamil (12 August 2007).

"Neurolinguistics"

(http://www.tlumaczenia-angielski.info

/linguistics/neurolinguistics.htm).J !zyk

angielski online. Retrieved 31 January

2009.

2.

Dronkers, N.F.; O. Plaisant; M.T. Iba-Zizen;

E.A. Cabanis (2007). "Paul Broca's historic

cases: high resolution MR imaging of the

brains of Leborgne and Lelong"

(http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint

/130/5/1432). Brain 130 (Pt 5): 1432–3,

1441. doi:10.1093/brain/awm042

(https://dx.doi.org

/10.1093%2Fbrain%2Fawm042).

PMID 17405763

(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

/17405763). Retrieved 25 January 2009.

3.

Teter, Theresa (May 2000). "Pierre-Paul

Broca" (http://www.muskingum.edu

/~psych/psycweb/history/broca.htm).

Muskingum College. Retrieved 25 January

2009.

4.

"Pierre Paul Broca"

(http://www.whonamedit.com/doctor.cfm

/1982.html). Who Named It? . Retrieved

25 January 2009.

5.

McCaffrey, Patrick (2008). "CMSD 620

Neuroanatomy of Speech, Swallowing and

Language" (http://www.csuchico.edu

/~pmccaffrey/syllabi/CMSD%20320

/362unit4.html). Neuroscience on the

Web. California State University, Chico.

Retrieved 22 February 2009.

6.

Garey, Laurence. "Brodmann's"

(http://www.springer.com/biomed

/neuroscience/book/978-0-387-26917-7).

Retrieved 22 February 2009.

7.

Ingram (2007), p. 3.8.

Peng, F.C.C. (1985). "What is

neurolinguistics?". Journal of

Neurolinguistics 1 (1): 7.

doi:10.1016/S0911-6044(85)80003-8

(https://dx.doi.org

/10.1016%2FS0911-6044%2885%2980003-8).

9.

Brown, Colin M.; and Peter Hagoort

(1999). "The cognitive neuroscience of

language." in Brown & Hagoort, The

Neurocognition of Language. p. 6.

10.

Weisler (1999), p. 293.11.

Hagoort, Peter (2003). "How the brain

solves the binding problem for language:

a neurocomputational model of syntactic

processing". NeuroImage 20: S18–29.

doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.09.013

(https://dx.doi.org

/10.1016%2Fj.neuroimage.2003.09.013).

PMID 14597293


/14597293).

12.

Hall, Christopher J (2005). An Introductionto Language and Linguistics

(http://books.google.com

/?id=RWspkUKj274C&pg=PA69&

lpg=PA69&

dq=neurolinguistics+and+psycholinguistic

s). Continuum International Publishing

Group. p. 274. ISBN 0-8264-8734-3.

13.

Hagoort, Peter; Colin M. Brown; Lee

Osterhout (1999). "The neurocognition of

syntactic processing." in Brown &

Hagoort. The Neurocognition of

Language. p. 280.

14.


11 de 19 15/3/15 17:57



Hagoort, Peter (2003). "How the brain

solves the binding problem for language:

a neurocomputational model of syntactic

processing". NeuroImage 20: S19–S20.

doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.09.013

(https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.neuroimage.2003.09.013).

PMID 14597293


/14597293).

15.

Pylkkänen, Liina. "What is

neurolinguistics?"

(http://www.psych.nyu.edu/pylkkanen

/Neural_Bases/01_Intro.pdf). p. 2.

Retrieved 31 January 2009.

16.

See, for example, Friederici, Angela D.

(2002). "Towards a neural basis of auditory

sentence processing". TRENDS in

Cognitive Sciences 6 (2): 78.

doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01839-8

(https://dx.doi.org

/10.1016%2FS1364-6613%2800%2901839

-8)., which discusses how three brainresponses reflect three stages of Fodor

and Frazier's model.

17.

Weisler (1999), p. 280.18.

Hickock, Gregory; David Poeppel (2007).

"Opinion: The cortical organization of

speech processing"

(http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v8/n5

/abs/nrn2113.html). Nature Reviews

Neuroscience 8 (5): 393–402.

doi:10.1038/nrn2113 (https://dx.doi.org

/10.1038%2Fnrn2113). PMID 17431404


/17431404).

19.

Embick, David; Alec Marantz; Yasushi

Miyashita; Wayne O'Neil; Kuniyoshi L.

Sakai (2000). "A syntactic specialization for

Broca's area" (http://www.pnas.org

/content/97/11/6150.abstract?ck=nck).

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97 (11): 6150–6154.

doi:10.1073/pnas.100098897

(https://dx.doi.org

/10.1073%2Fpnas.100098897).

PMC 18573 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

/pmc/articles/PMC18573). PMID 10811887


/10811887).

20.

Brown, Colin M.; and Peter Hagoort

(1999). "The cognitive neuroscience of

language." in Brown & Hagoort. The

Neurocognition of Language. p. 7.

21.

Wang Yue; Joan A. Sereno; Allard

Jongman; and Joy Hirsch (2003). "fMRI

evidence for cortical modification during

learning of Mandarin lexical tone". Journal

of Cognitive Neuroscience 15 (7):1019–1027.

doi:10.1162/089892903770007407

(https://dx.doi.org

/10.1162%2F089892903770007407).

PMID 14614812


/14614812).

22.

Menn, Lise. "Neurolinguistics"

(http://www.lsadc.org/info/ling-fields-

neuro.cfm). Linguistic Society of America.

Retrieved 18 December 2008.

23.

"The Bilingual Brain" (http://www.sfn.org

/index.cfm?pagename=brainBriefings_the

bilingualbrain). Brain Briefings . Society for

Neuroscience. February 2008. Retrieved

1 February 2009.

24.


12 de 19 15/3/15 17:57



Friederici, Angela D. (2002). "Towards a

neural basis of auditory sentence

processing". TRENDS in Cognitive

Sciences 6 (2): 78–84.

doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01839-8

(https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS1364-6613%2800%2901839

-8).

25.

Caplan (1987), p. 11.26.

Caplan (1987), p. 12.27.

Sereno, Joan A; Yue Wang (2007).

"Behavioral and cortical effects of learning

a second language: The acquisition of

tone". In Ocke-Schwen Bohn and Murray

J. Munro. Language Experience in Second

Language Speech Learning. Philadelphia:

John Benjamins Publishing Company.

28.

Ward, Jamie (2006). "The imaged brain".

The Student's Guide to Cognitive

Neuroscience. Psychology Press.

ISBN 1-84169-534-3.

29.

Kutas, Marta; Kara D. Federmeier (2002).

"Electrophysiology reveals memory use inlanguage comprehension". TRENDS in

Cognitive Sciences 4 (12).

30.

Filler AG, Tsuruda JS, Richards TL, Howe

FA: Images, apparatus, algorithms and

methods. GB 9216383, UK Patent Office,

1992.

31.

Ansaldo, Ana Inés; Kahlaoui, Karima;

Joanette, Yves (2011). "Functional

near-infrared spectroscopy: Looking at the

brain and language mystery from a

different angle". Brain and Language 121

(2, number 2): 77–8.

doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2012.03.001

(https://dx.doi.org

/10.1016%2Fj.bandl.2012.03.001).

PMID 22445199


/22445199).

32.

Pylkkänen, Liina; Alec Marantz (2003).

"Tracking the time course of word

recognition with MEG". TRENDS in

Cognitive Sciences 7 (5): 187–189.

doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00092-5


-5).

33.

Van Petten, Cyma; Luka, Barbara (2006).

"Neural localization of semantic context

effects in electromagnetic and

hemodynamic studies". Brain and

Language 97: 281.

doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2005.11.003

(https://dx.doi.org

/10.1016%2Fj.bandl.2005.11.003).

34.

Coles, Michael G.H.; Michael D. Rugg

(1996). "Event-related brain potentials: an

introduction". Electrophysiology of Mind

(http://l3d.cs.colorado.edu/~ctg/classes

/lib/cogsci/Rugg-ColesChp1.pdf). Oxford

Scholarship Online Monographs. pp. 1–27.

ISBN 0-19-852135-9.

35.

Pulvermüller, Friedemann; Yury Shtyrov;

Anna S. Hasting; Robert P. Carlyon (2008).

"Syntax as a reflex: neurophysiological

evidence for the early automaticity of

syntactic processing". Brain and Language

104 (3): 244–253.

doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2007.05.002

(https://dx.doi.org

/10.1016%2Fj.bandl.2007.05.002).

PMID 17624417


/17624417).

36.


13 de 19 15/3/15 17:57



Frisch, Stefan; Anja Hahne; Angela D.

Friederici (2004). "Word category and

verb–argument structure information in

the dynamics of parsing". Cognition 91

(3): 191–219 [194].

doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2003.09.009(https://dx.doi.org

/10.1016%2Fj.cognition.2003.09.009).

PMID 15168895


/15168895).

37.

Kaan, Edith; Swaab, Tamara (2003).

"Repair, revision, and complexity in

syntactic analysis: an electrophysiological

differentiation". Journal of Cognitive


doi:10.1162/089892903321107855

(https://dx.doi.org

/10.1162%2F089892903321107855).

PMID 12590846


/12590846).

38.

van Turrenout, Miranda; Hagoort, Peter;Brown, Colin M (1998). "Brain activity

during speaking: from syntax to

phonology in 40 milliseconds". Science

280 (5363): 572–4.

doi:10.1126/science.280.5363.572

(https://dx.doi.org

/10.1126%2Fscience.280.5363.572).

PMID 9554845


/9554845).

39.

Grabowski, T., and Damasio, A." (2000).

Investigating language with functional

neuroimaging. San Diego, CA, US:

Academic Press. 14, 425-461.

40.

Pulvermüller, Friedemann; Yury Shtyrov

(2003). "Automatic processing of grammar

in the human brain as revealed by the

mismatch negativity". NeuroImage 20 (1):

159–172.

doi:10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00261-1(https://dx.doi.org

/10.1016%2FS1053-8119%2803%2900261

-1). PMID 14527578


/14527578).

41.

Phillips, Colin; T. Pellathy; A. Marantz; E.

Yellin; K. Wexler; M. McGinnis; D. Poeppel;

T. Roberts (2001). "Auditory cortex

accesses phonological category: an MEG

mismatch study". Journal of Cognitive

Neuroscience 12 (6): 1038–1055.

doi:10.1162/08989290051137567

(https://dx.doi.org

/10.1162%2F08989290051137567).

42.

Shtyrov, Yury; Olaf Hauk; Friedmann

Pulvermüller (2004). "Distributed neuronal

networks for encoding category-specificsemantic information: the mismatch

negativity to action words". European

Journal of Neuroscience 19 (4):

1083–1092.

doi:10.1111/j.0953-816X.2004.03126.x

(https://dx.doi.org

/10.1111%2Fj.0953-816X.2004.03126.x).

PMID 15009156


/15009156).

43.


14 de 19 15/3/15 17:57



Näätänen, Risto; Lehtokoski, Anne;

Lennes, Mietta; Cheour, Marie;

Huotilainen, Minna; Iivonen, Antti; Vainio,

Martti; Alku, Paavo et al. (1997).

"Language-specific phoneme

representations revealed by electric andmagnetic brain responses". Nature 385

(6615): 432–434. doi:10.1038/385432a0

(https://dx.doi.org/10.1038%2F385432a0).

PMID 9009189


/9009189).

44.

Kazanina, Nina; Colin Phillips; William

Idsardi (2006). "The influence of meaning

on the perception of speech sounds"

(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

/pmc/articles/PMC3020137). Proceedings

of the National Academy of Sciences of

the United States of America 103 (30):

11381–11386.

doi:10.1073/pnas.0604821103

(https://dx.doi.org

/10.1073%2Fpnas.0604821103).PMC 3020137


/pmc/articles/PMC3020137).

PMID 16849423


/16849423).

45.

Hasing, Anna S.; Sonja A. Kotz; Angela D.

Friederici (2007). "Setting the stage for

automatic syntax processing: the mismatch

negativity as an indicator of syntactic

priming". Journal of Cognitive


doi:10.1162/jocn.2007.19.3.386

(https://dx.doi.org

/10.1162%2Fjocn.2007.19.3.386).

PMID 17335388


/17335388).

46.

Example from Frisch et al. (2004: 195).47.

Kutas, M.; S.A. Hillyard (1980). "Reading

senseless sentences: brain potentials

reflect semantic incongruity". Science 207

(4427): 203–205.

doi:10.1126/science.7350657(https://dx.doi.org

/10.1126%2Fscience.7350657).

PMID 7350657


/7350657).

48.

Osterhout, Lee; Phillip J. Holcomb (1992).

"Event-related Potentials Elicited by

Grammatical Anomalies".

Psychophysiological Brain Research:

299–302.

49.

Martín-Loeches, Manuel; Roland Nigbura;

Pilar Casadoa; Annette Hohlfeldc; Werner

Sommer (2006). "Semantics prevalence

over syntax during sentence processing: a

brain potential study of noun–adjective

agreement in Spanish". Brain Research 6

(1): 178–189.doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2006.03.094

(https://dx.doi.org

/10.1016%2Fj.brainres.2006.03.094).

PMID 16678138


/16678138).

50.



verb–argument structure information in

the dynamics of parsing". Cognition 91

(3): 191–219 [195].

doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2003.09.009

(https://dx.doi.org

/10.1016%2Fj.cognition.2003.09.009).

PMID 15168895


/15168895).

51.


15 de 19 15/3/15 17:57



"Experiment Description: Lexical Decision

and Semantic Priming"

(http://psych.athabascau.ca

/html/Psych355

/Exp/lexical.shtml?sso=true). Athatbasca

University. 27 June 2005. Retrieved14 December 2008.

52.

Fiorentino, Robert; David Poeppel (2007).

"Processing of compound words: an MEG

study". Brain and Language 103: 8–249.

doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2007.07.009

(https://dx.doi.org

/10.1016%2Fj.bandl.2007.07.009).

53.

Friederici, Angela D.; Karsten Steinhauer;

Stefan Frisch (1999). "Lexical integration:

sequential effects of syntactic and

semantic information". Memory &

Cognition 27 (3): 438–453.

doi:10.3758/BF03211539

(https://dx.doi.org

/10.3758%2FBF03211539).

54.

Devlin, Joseph T.; Helen L. Jamison; Paul

M. Matthews; Laura M. Gonnerman (2004)."Morphology and the internal structure of

words" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

/pmc/articles/PMC522020). Proceedings

of the National Academy of Sciences 101

(41): 14984–14988.

doi:10.1073/pnas.0403766101

(https://dx.doi.org

/10.1073%2Fpnas.0403766101).

PMC 522020



PMID 15358857


/15358857).

55.

Zurif, E.B.; D. Swinney; P. Prather; J.

Solomon; C. Bushell (1993). "An on-line

analysis of syntactic processing in Broca's

and Wernicke's aphasia". Brain and

Language 45 (3): 448–464.

doi:10.1006/brln.1993.1054(https://dx.doi.org

/10.1006%2Fbrln.1993.1054).

PMID 8269334


/8269334).

56.

"Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation - Risks"

(http://www.mayoclinic.com/health

/transcranial-magnetic-stimulation

/MY00185/DSECTION=risks). Mayo Clinic.


57.

"Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS)"

(http://www.nami.org/Content

/ContentGroups/Helpline1

/Transcranial_Magnetic_Stimulation_(rTMS

).htm). National Alliance on Mental Illness.


58.

A.R. Wyler; A.A. Ward, Jr (1981). "Neuronsin human epileptic cortex. Response to

direct cortical stimulation". Journal of

Neurosurgery 55 (6): 904–8.

doi:10.3171/jns.1981.55.6.0904

(https://dx.doi.org

/10.3171%2Fjns.1981.55.6.0904).

PMID 7299464


/7299464).

59.

Hagoort, Peter (2005). "On Broca, brain,

and binding: a new framework". TRENDS

in Cognitive Sciences 9 (9): 416–23.

doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.07.004

(https://dx.doi.org

/10.1016%2Fj.tics.2005.07.004).

PMID 16054419


/16054419).

60.


16 de 19 15/3/15 17:57



One common exception to this is studies

using the mismatch paradigm, in which

subjects are often instructed to watch a

silent movie or otherwise not pay attention

actively to the stimuli. See, for example:

Pulvermüller, Friedemann; RaminAssadollahi (2007). "Grammar or

serial order?: discrete combinatorial

brain mechanicsms reflected by the

syntactic mismatch negativity".

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

19 (6): 971–980.

doi:10.1162/jocn.2007.19.6.971

(https://dx.doi.org

/10.1162%2Fjocn.2007.19.6.971).

PMID 17536967


/pubmed/17536967).

Pulvermüller, Friedemann; Yury

Shtyrov (2003). "Automatic

processing of grammar in the human

brain as revealed by the mismatch

negativity". NeuroImage 20 (1):159–172.

doi:10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00261-1

(https://dx.doi.org

/10.1016%2FS1053-8119%2803%29

00261-1). PMID 14527578


/pubmed/14527578).

61.

Van Petten, Cyma (1993). "A comparison

of lexical and sentence-level context

effects in event-related potentials".

Language and Cognitive Processes 8 (4):

490–91. doi:10.1080/01690969308407586

(https://dx.doi.org

/10.1080%2F01690969308407586).

62.

Hahne, Anja; Angela D. Friederici (2002).

"Differential task effects on semantic and

syntactic processes as revealed by ERPs".

Cognitive Brain Research 13 (3): 339–356.

doi:10.1016/S0926-6410(01)00127-6


-6).

63.

Zheng Ye; Yue-jia Luo; Angela D.

Friederici; Xiaolin Zhou (2006). "Semantic

and syntactic processing in Chinese

sentence comprehension: evidence from

event-related potentials". Brain Research

1071 (1): 186–196.

doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2005.11.085

(https://dx.doi.org

/10.1016%2Fj.brainres.2005.11.085).

PMID 16412999


/16412999).

64.



verb–argument structure information inthe dynamics of parsing". Cognition 91

(3): 200–201.

doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2003.09.009

(https://dx.doi.org

/10.1016%2Fj.cognition.2003.09.009).

PMID 15168895


/15168895).

65.


17 de 19 15/3/15 17:57



Osterhout, Lee (1997). "On the brain

response to syntactic anomalies:

manipulations of word position and word

class reveal individual differences". Brain

and Language 59 (3): 494–522 [500].

doi:10.1006/brln.1997.1793(https://dx.doi.org

/10.1006%2Fbrln.1997.1793).

PMID 9299074


/9299074).

66.

Hagoort, Peter (2003). "Interplay between

syntax and semantics during sentence

comprehension: ERP effects of combining

syntactic and semantic violations". Journal

of Cognitive Neuroscience 15 (6):

883–899.

doi:10.1162/089892903322370807

(https://dx.doi.org

/10.1162%2F089892903322370807).

PMID 14511541


/14511541).

67.

Gordon, Peter. "The Truth-Value

Judgment Task". In D. McDaniel, C.

McKee, H. Cairns. Methods for assessing

children's syntax

(http://faculty.tc.columbia.edu/upload

/pg328/TRUTHVALUECHAPT.pdf).

Cambridge: MIT Press. p. 1.

68.

Crain, Stephen, Luisa Meroni, and Utako

Minai. "If Everybody Knows, then Every

Child Knows

(http://www.maccs.mq.edu.au/~scrain

/papers/GALA%2704.pdf)." University of

Maryland at College Park. Retrieved 14December 2008.

69.

Rogalsky, Corianne; William Matchin;

Gregory Hickok (2008). "Broca's Area,

Sentence Comprehension, and Working

Memory: An fMRI Study"


/pmc/articles/PMC2572210). Frontiers in

Human Neuroscience 2: 14.

doi:10.3389/neuro.09.014.2008

(https://dx.doi.org

/10.3389%2Fneuro.09.014.2008).

PMC 2572210



PMID 18958214


/18958214).

70.

References

Colin M. Brown and Peter Hagoort, ed. (1999). The Neurocognition of Language.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Caplan, David (1987). Neurolinguistics and Linguistic Aphasiology: An Introduction

(http://books.google.com/?id=E3XrTCsU7bkC). Cambridge University Press. p. 498.

ISBN 0-521-31195-0.

Ingram, John C.L. (2007). Neurolinguistics: An Introduction to Spoken Language

Processing and Its Disorders (http://books.google.com/?id=CQ8agSNL9MYC).


18 de 19 15/3/15 17:57



Cambridge University Press. p. 420. ISBN 0-521-79190-1.

Weisler, Stephen; Slavoljub P. Milekic (1999). "Brain and Language". Theory of

Language (http://books.google.com/?id=wIaGLUFHtxsC&pg=PA273&lpg=PA273&

dq=what+is+neurolinguistics). MIT Press. p. 344. ISBN 0-262-73125-8.

External links

Society for Neuroscience (SfN) (http://www.sfn.org/)

[1] (http://www.linguisticsociety.org/content/language-and-brain) Neurolinguistics

Resources from the LSA

Talking Brains (http://talkingbrains.blogspot.com/), blog by neurolinguists Greg

Hickock and David Poeppel

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neurolinguistics&

oldid=629257105"

Categories: Neurolinguistics Neuroscience

This page was last modified on 12 October 2014, at 03:23.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;

additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and

Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation,

Inc., a non-profit organization.


19 de 19 15/3/15 17:57

Neuro Linguistics

Documents

Transcript of Neuro Linguistics