Donald Dunagan , Tyson Jordan , John T. Hale , Liina Pylkkänen , Dustin A. Chacón
{"title":"评估快速平行视觉呈现后词法正字法、词汇和语法处理的时间进程:英语脑电图调查","authors":"Donald Dunagan , Tyson Jordan , John T. Hale , Liina Pylkkänen , Dustin A. Chacón","doi":"10.1016/j.cognition.2025.106080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Theories of language processing – and typical experimental methodologies – emphasize the word-by-word processing of sentences. This paradigm is good for approximating speech or careful text reading, but arguably, not for the common, cursory glances used while reading short sentences (e.g., cellphone notifications, social media posts). How can we interpret a sentence in a single glance? In an electroencephalography (EEG) study, brain responses to grammatical sentences (<em>the dogs chase a ball</em>) presented for 200 ms diverged from non-lexical consonant strings (<em>thj rjxb zkhtb w lhct</em>) ∼160 ms post-sentence onset and from scrambled constructions (<em>a dogs chase ball the</em>) ∼250 ms post-sentence onset, demonstrating – at different time points – rapid recognition and cursory analysis of linguistic stimuli. In the grammatical sentences, unigram probability correlated with EEG data ∼150–300 ms post-sentence onset, and probability of the word given its context estimated by BERT correlated with EEG data after ∼700–800 ms. EEG responses did not diverge between grammatical sentences and their counterparts with ungrammatical agreement (<em>the dogs chases a ball</em>), although EEG responses did diverge for plural vs. singular morphology at ∼200 ms. These results suggest that ‘at-a-glance’ reading is possible, based on coactivation of individual lexical items, morphological structures, and constituent structure at ∼200-300 ms, but that words are not integrated into a coherent syntactic/semantic analysis, as evidenced by the substantially later responses to BERT probability and the absence of sensitivity to agreement errors.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48455,"journal":{"name":"Cognition","volume":"257 ","pages":"Article 106080"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating the timecourses of morpho-orthographic, lexical, and grammatical processing following rapid parallel visual presentation: An EEG investigation in English\",\"authors\":\"Donald Dunagan , Tyson Jordan , John T. Hale , Liina Pylkkänen , Dustin A. Chacón\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cognition.2025.106080\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Theories of language processing – and typical experimental methodologies – emphasize the word-by-word processing of sentences. This paradigm is good for approximating speech or careful text reading, but arguably, not for the common, cursory glances used while reading short sentences (e.g., cellphone notifications, social media posts). How can we interpret a sentence in a single glance? In an electroencephalography (EEG) study, brain responses to grammatical sentences (<em>the dogs chase a ball</em>) presented for 200 ms diverged from non-lexical consonant strings (<em>thj rjxb zkhtb w lhct</em>) ∼160 ms post-sentence onset and from scrambled constructions (<em>a dogs chase ball the</em>) ∼250 ms post-sentence onset, demonstrating – at different time points – rapid recognition and cursory analysis of linguistic stimuli. In the grammatical sentences, unigram probability correlated with EEG data ∼150–300 ms post-sentence onset, and probability of the word given its context estimated by BERT correlated with EEG data after ∼700–800 ms. EEG responses did not diverge between grammatical sentences and their counterparts with ungrammatical agreement (<em>the dogs chases a ball</em>), although EEG responses did diverge for plural vs. singular morphology at ∼200 ms. These results suggest that ‘at-a-glance’ reading is possible, based on coactivation of individual lexical items, morphological structures, and constituent structure at ∼200-300 ms, but that words are not integrated into a coherent syntactic/semantic analysis, as evidenced by the substantially later responses to BERT probability and the absence of sensitivity to agreement errors.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognition\",\"volume\":\"257 \",\"pages\":\"Article 106080\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027725000204\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027725000204","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
语言处理理论——以及典型的实验方法——强调对句子的逐字处理。这种模式适用于近似语音或仔细阅读文本,但对于阅读短句(例如,手机通知、社交媒体帖子)时常见的粗略扫视并不适用。我们怎么能一眼就看懂一个句子呢?在一项脑电图(EEG)研究中,大脑对语法句子(狗追球)的反应在200毫秒内出现,从非词汇辅音字符串(thj rjxb zkhtb w lhct)到句子开始后160毫秒,以及从混乱结构(狗追球)到句子开始后250毫秒,在不同的时间点显示出对语言刺激的快速识别和粗略分析。在语法句子中,单图概率与句子开始后150-300 ms的EEG数据相关,BERT估计的给定上下文的单词概率与700-800 ms后的EEG数据相关。脑电图反应在语法一致的句子和非语法一致的句子(狗追球)之间没有差异,尽管脑电图反应在200 ms时复数和单数形态确实存在差异。这些结果表明,在200-300毫秒的时间内,基于单个词汇项、形态结构和组成结构的共同激活,“一眼”阅读是可能的,但单词没有被整合到连贯的句法/语义分析中,这一点可以从BERT概率的较晚反应和对一致性错误缺乏敏感性得到证明。
Evaluating the timecourses of morpho-orthographic, lexical, and grammatical processing following rapid parallel visual presentation: An EEG investigation in English
Theories of language processing – and typical experimental methodologies – emphasize the word-by-word processing of sentences. This paradigm is good for approximating speech or careful text reading, but arguably, not for the common, cursory glances used while reading short sentences (e.g., cellphone notifications, social media posts). How can we interpret a sentence in a single glance? In an electroencephalography (EEG) study, brain responses to grammatical sentences (the dogs chase a ball) presented for 200 ms diverged from non-lexical consonant strings (thj rjxb zkhtb w lhct) ∼160 ms post-sentence onset and from scrambled constructions (a dogs chase ball the) ∼250 ms post-sentence onset, demonstrating – at different time points – rapid recognition and cursory analysis of linguistic stimuli. In the grammatical sentences, unigram probability correlated with EEG data ∼150–300 ms post-sentence onset, and probability of the word given its context estimated by BERT correlated with EEG data after ∼700–800 ms. EEG responses did not diverge between grammatical sentences and their counterparts with ungrammatical agreement (the dogs chases a ball), although EEG responses did diverge for plural vs. singular morphology at ∼200 ms. These results suggest that ‘at-a-glance’ reading is possible, based on coactivation of individual lexical items, morphological structures, and constituent structure at ∼200-300 ms, but that words are not integrated into a coherent syntactic/semantic analysis, as evidenced by the substantially later responses to BERT probability and the absence of sensitivity to agreement errors.
期刊介绍:
Cognition is an international journal that publishes theoretical and experimental papers on the study of the mind. It covers a wide variety of subjects concerning all the different aspects of cognition, ranging from biological and experimental studies to formal analysis. Contributions from the fields of psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, computer science, mathematics, ethology and philosophy are welcome in this journal provided that they have some bearing on the functioning of the mind. In addition, the journal serves as a forum for discussion of social and political aspects of cognitive science.