Sanne Brederoo

Disrupting morphosyntactic and lexical semantic processing has opposite effects on the sample entropy of neural signals.

Converging evidence in neuroscience suggests that syntax and semantics are dissociable in brain space and time. However, it is possible that partly disjoint cortical networks, operating in successive time frames, still perform similar types of neural computations. To test the alternative hypothesis, we collected EEG data while participants read sentences containing lexical semantic or morphosyntactic anomalies, resulting in N400 and P600 effects, respectively. Next, we reconstructed phase space trajectories from EEG time series, and we measured the complexity of the resulting dynamical orbits using sample entropy - an index of the rate at which the system generates or loses information over time. Disrupting morphosyntactic or lexical semantic processing had opposite effects on sample entropy: it increased in the N400 window for semantic anomalies, and it decreased in the P600 window for morphosyntactic anomalies. These findings point to a fundamental divergence in the neural computations supporting meaning and grammar in language.

Gamma Oscillations as a Neural Signature of Shifting Times in Narrative Language

Verbs and other temporal expressions allow speakers to specify the location of events in time, as well as to move back and forth in time, shifting in a narrative between past, present and future. The referential flexibility of temporal expressions is well understood in linguistics but its neurocognitive bases remain unknown. We aimed at obtaining a neural signature of shifting times in narrative language. We recorded and analyzed event-related brain potentials (ERPs) and oscillatory responses to the adverb ‘now’ and to the second main verb in Punctual (‘An hour ago the boy stole a candy and now he peeled the fruit’) and Iterative (‘The entire afternoon the boy stole candy and now he peeled the fruit’) contexts. ‘An hour ago’ introduces a time frame that lies entirely in the past, ‘now’ shifts the narrative to the present, and ‘peeled’ shifts it back to the past. These two referential shifts in Punctual contexts are expected to leave very similar traces on neural responses. In contrast, ‘The entire afternoon’ specifies a time frame that may encompass past, present and future, such that both ‘now’ and ‘peeled’ are consistent with it. Here, no time shift is required. We found no difference in ERPs between Punctual and Iterative contexts either at ‘now’ or at the second verb. However, reference shifts modulated oscillatory signals. ‘Now’ and the second verb in Punctual contexts resulted in similar responses: an increase in gamma power with a left-anterior distribution. Gamma bursts were absent in Iterative contexts. We propose that gamma oscillations here reflect the binding of temporal variables to the values allowed by constraints introduced by temporal expressions in discourse.

Hemispheric specialization for global and local processing: A direct comparison of linguistic and non-linguistic stimuli

HighlightsThe direction of global and local lateralization is not stimulus‐specific.Global processing lateralization is more extreme for linguistic stimuli.Local processing lateralization is robust to changes in stimulus characteristics.Reversed global and local lateralization are likely due to confounding factors. Abstract It is often assumed that the human brain processes the global and local properties of visual stimuli in a lateralized fashion, with a left hemisphere (LH) specialization for local detail, and a right hemisphere (RH) specialization for global form. However, the evidence for such global‐local lateralization stems predominantly from studies using linguistic stimuli, the processing of which has shown to be LH lateralized in itself. In addition, some studies have reported a reversal of global‐local lateralization when using non‐linguistic stimuli. Accordingly, it remains unclear whether global‐local lateralization may in fact be stimulus‐specific. To address this issue, we asked participants to respond to linguistic and non‐linguistic stimuli that were presented in the right and left visual fields, allowing for first access by the LH and RH, respectively. The results showed global‐RH and local‐LH advantages for both stimulus types, but the global lateralization effect was larger for linguistic stimuli. Furthermore, this pattern of results was found to be robust, as it was observed regardless of two other task manipulations. We conclude that the instantiation and direction of global and local lateralization is not stimulus‐specific. However, the magnitude of global,—but not local—, lateralization is dependent on stimulus type.