Effects of Semantic Anomalies in the Persian Language on Event-Related Potentials
International Clinical Neuroscience Journal,
Vol. 11 No. 1 (2024),
4 November 2025
,
Page e4
https://doi.org/10.22037/icnj.v11i1.42640
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to investigate the qualitative effects of semantic anomalies on event-related potentials (ERPs) in the context of Persian language processing. Comprehending sentences and integrating words in the correct order are crucial aspects of language processing. Understanding how the brain accomplishes this task during reading, writing, and listening is of great importance.
Methods: In this experiment, 10 healthy, right-handed, Persian-speaking participants (10 women, 10 men) aged 18-40 were included. Four types of sentences, including control conditions and semantic anomalies, were presented word-by-word on a monitor while EEG was recorded with a 64-channel system. The collected signals were analyzed, and the ERPs components were compared statistically.
Results: The presence of a semantic irregularity, specifically an incoherent verb at the end of a sentence, leads to the activation of the N400 component. This component is associated with symmetrical electrode distribution across the anterior, central, and parietal regions of the scalp. On the other hand, when the semantic irregularity in the form of an incoherent verb is positioned in the middle of the sentence, it elicits the production of the P600 component. The corresponding electrodes associated with the P600 component exhibit a distribution that is central, parietal, and left anterior.
Conclusion: The findings contribute to our understanding of the relationships between semantic processing and the N400 component, as well as between syntactic processing and the P600 component. The absence of N400 in the presence of semantic irregularities and the presence of P600 in the absence of semantic anomalies align with the dynamics of the language processing system, where distinct processing units interact and communicate independently.
- Event-related potentials; P600; Semantic processing; sentence comprehension.
How to Cite
References
1. Hagoort P. MUC (Memory, Unification, Control) and beyond. Front Psychol. 2013;4:416. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00416
2. Bi Y, Du X. Study on the application of infants’ brain neural mechanism of native language learning in English teaching. Journal of Educational Science and Technology Practice. 2018;18(6). Doi: 10.12783/dtssehs/icesd2018/25709
3. Marian V, Bartolotti J, Rochanavibhata S, Bradley K, Hernandez AE. Bilingual cortical control of between- and within-language competition. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):11763. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-12116-w
4. Bedny M, Pascual-Leone A, Dodell-Feder D, Fedorenko E, Saxe R. Language processing in the occipital cortex of congenitally blind adults. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108(11):4429–4434. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1014818108
5. Petitto LA, Zatorre RJ, Gauna K, Nikelski EJ, Dostie D, Evans AC. Speech-like cerebral activity in profoundly deaf people processing signed languages: implications for the neural basis of human language. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000;97(25):13961–13966. doi: 10.1073/pnas.97.25.13961
6. Gibson E, Bergen L, Piantadosi ST. Rational integration of noisy evidence and prior semantic expectations in sentence interpretation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110(20):8051–8056. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1216438110
7. Hagoort P. Interplay between syntax and semantics during sentence comprehension: ERP effects of combining syntactic and semantic violations. J Cogn Neurosci. 2003;15(6):883–899. doi: 10.1162/089892903322370807
8. Kim A, Osterhout L. The independence of combinatory semantic processing: evidence from event-related potentials. J Mem Lang. 2005;52(2):205–225. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2004.10.002
9. Neville H, Nicol JL, Barss A, Forster KI, Garrett MF. Syntactically based sentence processing classes: evidence from event-related brain potentials. J Cogn Neurosci. 1991;3(2):151–165. doi: 10.1162/jocn.1991.3.2.151
10. Dell’Acqua R, Sessa P, Peressotti F, Mulatti C, Navarrete E, Grainger J. ERP evidence for ultra-fast semantic processing in the picture–word interference paradigm. Front Psychol. 2010;1:177. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00177
11. Osterhout L, Holcomb PJ, Swinney DA. Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: evidence of the application of verb information during parsing. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1994;20(4):786–803. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.20.4.786
12. Stites MC, Payne BR, Federmeier KD. Getting ahead of yourself: parafoveal word expectancy modulates the N400 during sentence reading. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2017;17:475–490. doi: 10.3758/s13415-016-0494-3
13. Kim AE, Oines L, Miyake A. Individual differences in verbal working memory underlie a tradeoff between semantic and structural processing difficulty during language comprehension: an ERP investigation. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2018;44(3):406–421. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000462
14. Kutas M, Federmeier KD. Thirty years and counting: finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annu Rev Psychol. 2011;62:621–647. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123
15. Brouwer H, Crocker MW, Venhuizen NJ, Hoeks JC. A neurocomputational model of the N400 and the P600 in language processing. Cogn Sci. 2017;41:1318–1352. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12461
16. Schacht A, Sommer W. Time course and task dependence of emotion effects in word processing. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2009;9(1):28–43. doi: 10.3758/cabn.9.1.28
17. Osterhout L, Nicol JL. On the distinctiveness, independence, and time course of the brain responses to syntactic and semantic anomalies. Cogn Psychol. 1999;14(3):283–317. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1998.0688
18. Liu X, Shi Z, Ma Y, Qin J, Han S. Dynamic neural processing of linguistic cues related to death. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e67905. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0067905
19. Leckey M, Federmeier KD. The P3b and P600(s): Positive contributions to language comprehension. Psychophysiology. 2020;57(7):e13351. doi: 10.1111/psyp.13351
20. Van Herten M, Chwilla DJ, Kolk HHJ. When heuristics clash with parsing routines: ERP evidence for conflict monitoring in sentence perception. J Cogn Neurosci. 2006;18(7):1181–1197. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.7.1181
21. Barber H, Carreiras M. Grammatical gender and number agreement in Spanish: an ERP comparison. J Cogn Neurosci. 2005;17(1):137–153. doi: 10.1162/0898929052880101
22. Gunter TC, Friederici AD, Schriefers H. Syntactic gender and semantic expectancy: ERPs reveal early autonomy and late interaction. J Cogn Neurosci. 2000;12(4):556–568. doi: 10.1162/089892900562336
23. Tanner D, Morgan-Short K, Luck SJ. How inappropriate high-pass filters can produce artifactual effects and incorrect conclusions in ERP studies of language and cognition. Psychophysiology. 2015;52(8):997–1009. doi: 10.1111/psyp.12437
24. Lau EF, Holcomb PJ, Kuperberg GR. Dissociating N400 effects of prediction from association in single-word contexts. J Cogn Neurosci. 2013;25(3):484–502. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00324
25. Brothers T, Wlotko EW, Warnke L, Kuperberg GR. Going the extra mile: effects of discourse context on two late positivities during language comprehension. Neurobiol Lang (Camb). 2020;1(1):135–160. doi: 10.1162/nol_a_00005
26. Mehravari AS, Tanner D, Wampler EK, Valentine GD, Osterhout L. Effects of grammaticality and morphological complexity on the P600 event-related potential component. PLoS One. 2015;10(10):e0140850. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140850
27. Schacht A, Sommer W, Shmuilovich O, Casado P C, Martín-Loeches M. Differential task effects on N400 and P600 elicited by semantic and syntactic violations. PLoS One. 2014;9(3):e91226. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0091226
- Abstract Viewed: 109 times
- PDF Downloaded: 81 times