The electrophysiological reality of parafoveal processing: On the validity of language-related ERPs in natural reading

A central question in psycholinguistics is how the human brain processes language in real time. To answer this question, the differences between auditory and visual processing have to be considered. The present dissertation examines the extent to which event-related potentials (ERPs) in the human el...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Kretzschmar, Franziska
Contributors: Schlesewsky, Matthias (Prof. Dr.) (Thesis advisor)
Format: Dissertation
Language:English
Published: Philipps-Universität Marburg 2010
Germanistische Sprachwissenschaft
Subjects:
Online Access:PDF Full Text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

1. Stabler, E.P. (1994). The finite connectivity of linguistic structure. In C. Clifton, Jr., L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 303-336). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.


2. Vogel, E. K., & Luck, S. J. (2002). Delayed working memory consolidation during the attentional blink. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 739-743.


3. McClelland, J.L. (1979). On the time relations of mental processes: An examination of systems of processes in cascade. Psychological Review, 86, 287-330.


4. Calvo, M. G., & Meseguer, E. (2002). Eye movements and processing stages in reading: relative contribution of visual, lexical, and contextual factors. Journal of Spanish Psychology, 5, 66-77.


5. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1984a). Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) elicited by novel stimuli during sentence processing. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 425, 236-241.


6. Federmeier, K. D., & Kutas, M. (1999). A rose by any other name: Long-term memory structure and sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 469-495.


7. Kutas, M., Van Petten, C., & Besson, M. (1988). Event-related potential asymmetries during the reading of sentences. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 69, 218-233.


8. Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (1990). Interactions between sentence context and word frequency in event-related potentials. Memory & Cognition, 18, 380-393.


9. Van den Brink, D., & Hagoort, P. (2004). The influence of semantic and syntactic context constraints on lexical selection and integration in spoken-word comprehension as revealed by ERPs. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 1068-1084.


10. Neely, J. H. (1977). Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 106, 226-254.


11. Hillyard, S. A., Hink, R. F., Schwent, V. L., & Picton, T. W. (1973). Electrical signs of selective attention in the human brain. Science, 182, 177-180.


12. Holcomb, P. J. (1988). Automatic and attentional processing: an event-related brain potential analysis of semantic priming. Brain and Language, 35, 66-85.


13. Holcomb, P. J., & Anderson, J. E. (1993). Cross-modal semantic priming: A time-course analysis using event-related brain potentials. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 379- 411.


14. Holcomb, P. J., & Neville, H. J. (1990). Auditory and visual semantic priming in lexical decision: A comparison using event-related brain potentials. Language and Cognitive Processes, 5, 281-312.


15. Comerchero, M. D., & Polich, J. (1999). P3a and P3b from typical auditory and visual stimuli. Clinical Neurophysiology, 110, 24-30.


16. Inhoff, A. W., Eiter, B. M., & Radach, R. (2005). Time course of linguistic information extraction from consecutive words during eye fixations in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 979-995.


17. Engbert, R., Nuthmann, A., Richter, E. M., & Kliegl, R. (2005). SWIFT: a dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. Psychological Review, 112, 777-813.


18. Kok, A. (2001). On the utility of P3 amplitude as a measure of processing capacity. Psychophysiology, 38, 557-577.


19. Yang, J., Wang, S., Xu, Y., & Rayner, K. (2009). Do Chinese readers obtain preview benefit from word n + 2? Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1192-1204.


20. Mecklinger, A., & Ullsperger, P. (1993). P3 varies with stimulus categorization rather than probability. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 86, 395-407.


21. Connolly, J.F., Phillips, N.A., Stewart, S.H., & Brake, W.G. (1992). Event-related potential sensitivity to acoustic and semantic properties of terminal words in sentences. Brain and Language, 43, 1-18.


22. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980b). Event-related brain potentials to semantically inappropriate and surprisingly large words. Biological Psychology, 11, 99-116.


23. Kok, A., & Looren de Jong, H. (1980). Components of the event-related potential following degraded and undegraded visual stimuli. Biological Psychology, 11, 117-133.


24. Bornkessel, I. D., Fiebach, C. J., & Friederici, A. D. (2004). On the cost of syntactic ambiguity in human language comprehension: an individual differences approach. Cognitive Brain Research, 21, 11-21.


25. Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 463-470.


26. Staub, A. (2007a). The parser doesn't ignore intransitivity, after all. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 550-569.


27. Coulson, S., King, J. W., & Kutas, M. (1998b). ERPs and domain specificity: Beating a straw horse. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, 653-672.


28. Kamide, Y., & Mitchell, D. C. (1999). Incremental Pre-head Attachment in Japanese Parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 631-662.


29. Frisch, S., & Schlesewsky, M. (2001). The N400 reflects problems of thematic hierarchizing. Neuroreport, 12, 3391-3394.


30. Kandel, E. R., Schwartz, J. H., & Jessell, T. M. (2000). Principles of neural science. Appleton & Lange.


31. Drieghe, D., Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2008). Mislocated fixations can account for parafoveal-on-foveal effects in eye movements during reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 1239-1249.


32. Drieghe, D., Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2005). Eye movements and word skipping during reading revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 954-959.


33. Kennedy, A., & Pynte, J. (2005). Parafoveal-on-foveal effects in normal reading. Vision Research, 45, 153-168.


34. Juhasz, B. J., Liversedge, S. P., White, S. J., & Rayner, K. (2006). Binocular coordination of the eyes during reading: word frequency and case alternation affect fixation duration but not fixation disparity. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1614-1625.


35. Gunter, T. C., & Friederici, A. D. (1999). Concerning the automaticity of syntactic processing. Psychophysiology, 36, 126-137.


36. Grewe, T., Bornkessel, I., Zysset, S., Wiese, R., von Cramon, D. Y., & Schlesewsky, M. (2006). Linguistic prominence and Broca's area: The influence of animacy as a linearization principle. Neuroimage, 32, 1395-1402.


37. Bornkessel, I., McElree, B., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2004). Multi-dimensional contributions to garden path strength: Dissociating phrase structure from case marking. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 495-522.


38. Mecklinger, A., Schriefers, H., Steinhauer, K., & Friederici, A. D. (1995). Processing relative clauses varying on syntactic and semantic dimensions: An analysis with event-related potentials. Memory & Cognition, 25, 477-494.


39. Friederici, A. D., & Mecklinger, A. (1996). Syntactic parsing as revealed by brain responses: first-pass and second-pass parsing processes. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 157-176. REFERENCES 265


40. Friederici, A. D., Mecklinger, A., Spencer, K. M., Steinhauer, K., & Donchin, E. (2001). Syntactic parsing preferences and their on-line revisions: a spatio-temporal analysis of event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Brain Research, 11, 305-323.


41. Bornkessel, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2006). The extended argument dependency model: a neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychological Review, 113, 787-821.


42. Wolff, S., Schlesewsky, M., Hirotani, M., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2008). The neural mechanisms of word order processing revisited: electrophysiological evidence from Japanese. Brain and Language, 107, 133-157.


43. Haupt, F. S., Schlesewsky, M., Roehm, D., Friederici, A. D., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2008). The status of subject-object reanalyses in the language comprehension architecture. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 54-96.


44. Gunter, T. C., Stowe, L. A., & Mulder, G. (1997). When syntax meets semantics. Psychophysiology, 34, 660-676.


45. Kretzschmar, F., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2009). Parafoveal vs. foveal N400s dissociate spreading activation from contextual fit. Neuroreport 20, 1613-1618.


46. Courchesne, E., Hillyard, S. A., & Galambos, R. (1975). Stimulus novelty, task relevance and the visual evoked potential in man. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol, 39, 131-143.


47. Hagoort, P., Brown, C. M., & Swaab, T. Y. (1996). Lexical-semantic event-related potential effects in patients with left hemisphere lesions and aphasia, and patients with right hemisphere lesions without aphasia. Brain, 119, 627-649.


48. Van Valin, R. D., Jr. (2005). Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge, NY: Camridge University Press.


49. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., Schlesewsky, M., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2009). Word order and Broca's region: evidence for a supra-syntactic perspective. Brain and Language, 111, 125-139.


50. McElree, B. (2006). Accessing recent events. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, Vol. 46. San Diego: Academic Press.


51. Mitchell, D. C., Shen, X., Green, M. J., & Hodgson, T. L. (2008). Accounting for regressive exe-movements in models of sentence processing: A reappraisal of the Selective Reanalysis hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 266-293.


52. Mangun, G. R., & Hillyard, S. A. (1990). Allocation of visual attention to spatial locations: tradeoff functions for event-related brain potentials and detection performance. Perception & Psychophysics, 47, 532-550.


53. McCarthy, G., & Donchin, E. (1981). A metric for thought: a comparison of P300 latency and reaction time. Science, 211, 77-80.


54. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2008). An alternative perspective on "semantic P600" effects in language comprehension. Brain Research Reviews, 59, 55- 73.


55. Luck, S. J. (2005). An introduciton to the event-related potential technique. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.


56. Johnson, R. J. (1986). A triarchic model of P300 amplitude. Psychophysiology, 23, 367-384.


57. Starr, M. S., & Inhoff, A. W. (2004). Attention allocation to the right and left of a fixated word: Use of orthographic information from multiple words during reading. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 203-225.


58. Berger, H. (1929). Über das Elektroenkephalogramm des Menschen [On the human electroencephalogram]. Archiv für Psychiatrie und Nervenkrankheiten, 87, 527-570.


59. Joos, M., Rötting, M., & Velichkovsky, B. M. (2003). Bewegungen des menschlichen Auges: Fakten, Methoden und innovative Anwendungen. In G. Rickheit, T. Herrmann, & W. Deutsch (Eds.), Psycholinguistik/Psycholinguistics. Ein internationales Handbuch/An international Handbook (pp. 142-168). Berlin & NY: de Gruyter.


60. Wunderlich, D. (1997). Cause and the structure of verbs. Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 27-68.


61. Koivisto, M., Revonsuo, A. (2008). Comparison of event-related potentials in attentional blink and repetition blindness. Brain Research, 1189, 115-126.


62. Huynh, H., & Feldt, L. S. (1970). Conditions under which the mean square ratios in repeated measurement designs have exact F-distributions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 65, 1582-1589.


63. Ehrlich, S. F., & Rayner, K. (1981). Contextual effects on word perception and eye movements during reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 641- 655.


64. Henderson, J. M., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (1989). Covert visual attention and extrafoveal information during object identification. Perception & Psychophysics, 45, 196-208.


65. Kerkhof, G. A. (1978). Decision latency: the P3 component in auditory signal detection. Neuroscience Letters, 8, 289-294.


66. Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.


67. Kennison, S. M., & Clifton, C. J. (1995). Determinants of parafoveal preview benefit in high and low working memory capacity readers: implications for eye movement control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learnnig, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 68-81.


68. Chen, H.-C., Song, H., Lau, W. Y., Wong, K. F. E., & Tang, S. L. (2003). Developmental characteristics of eye movements in reading Chinese. In C. McBride-Chang & H.-C. REFERENCES 263


69. Deutsch, A., Frost, R., Pelleg, S., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (2003). Early morphological effects in reading: evidence from parafoveal preview benefit in Hebrew. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 415-422.


70. Yen, M. H., Radach, R., Tzeng, O. J., Hung, D. L., & Tsai, J. L. (2009). Early parafoveal processing in reading Chinese sentences. Acta Psychologica, 131, 24-33.


71. Eben wurde dem Diplomaten der Dolmetscher geliehen, vermutete Ronny


72. Eben wurde dem Lehrer der Schüler geschickt, bestätigte Ronny


73. Friedman,D., Hakerem, G., Sutton, S., & Fleiss, J.L. (1973). Effect of stimulus uncertainty on the pupillary dilation response and the vrtex evoked potential. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 34, 475-484.


74. Kok, A. (1986). Effects of degradation of visual stimulation on components of the event- related potential (ERP) in go/nogo reaction tasks. Biological Psychology, 23, 21-38.


75. Kramer, A. F., Sirevaag, E. J., & Hughes, P. R. (1988). Effects of foveal task load on visual- spatial attention: event-related brain potentials and performance. Psychophysiology, 25, 512-531.


76. Ford, J. M., Pfefferbaum, A., Tinklenberg, J. R., & Kopell, B. S. (1982). Effects of perceptual and cognitive difficulty on P3 and RT in young and old adults. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 54, 311-321.


77. Kok, A., van de Vijver, F. R., & Rooijakkers, J. A. (1985). Effects of visual field, stimulus degradation, and level of practice on event-related potentials of the brain. Psychophysiology, 22, 707-717.


78. Koivisto, M., & Revonsuo, A. (2007). Electrophysiological correlates of visual consciousness and selective attention. Neuroreport, 18, 753-756.


79. Luck, S. J., & Hillyard, S. A. (1990). Electrophysiological evidence for parallel and serial processing during visual search. Perception & Psychophysics, 48, 603-617.


80. Bornkessel, I., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2003). Eliciting thematic reanalysis effects: The role of syntax-independent information during parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 269-298.


81. Bentin, S., Mouchetant-Rostaing, Y., Giard, M. H., Echallier, J. F., & Pernier, J. (1999). ERP manifestations of processing printed words at different psycholinguistic levels: time course and scalp distribution. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11 235-260.


82. Dominguez, A., de Vega., M, & Barber, H. (2004). Event-related brain potentials elicited by morphological, homographic, orthographic, and semantic priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 598-608.


83. Verleger, R. (1988). Event-related potentials and cognition: A critique of the context updating hypothesis and an alternative interpretation of P3. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 343-427.


84. Hoffman, J. E., Simons, R. F., & Houck, M. R. (1983). Event-related potentials during controlled and automatic target detection. Psychophysiology, 20, 625-632.


85. Carreiras, M., Salillas, E., & Barber, H. (2004). Event-related potentials elicited during parsing of ambiguous relative clauses in Spanish. Cognitive Brain Research, 20, 98-105.


86. Hillyard, S. A., Squires, K. C., Bauer, J. W., & Lindsay, P. H. (1971). Evoked potential correlates of auditory signal detection. Science, 172, 1357-1360.


87. Henderson, J. M., & Ferreira, F. (1993). Eye movement control during reading: fixation measures reflect foveal but not parafoveal processing difficulty. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 201-221.


88. Liversedge, S. P., Paterson, K. B., & Pickering, M. J. (1998). Eye movements and measures of reading time. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 55-75). Elsevier. REFERENCES 269


89. Staub, A., & Rayner, K. (2007). Eye movements and on-line comprehension processes. In G.M. Gaskell (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 327-342). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.


90. Yen, M. H., Tsai, J. L., Tzeng, O. J. L., & Hung, D. L. (2008). Eye movements and parafoveal word processing in reading Chinese. Memory & Cognition, 36, 1033.


91. Clifton, C., Staub, A., & Rayner, K. (2007). Eye movements in reading words and sentences. In R.P.G. van Gompel, M.H. Fischer, & W.S. Murray (Eds.), Eye movements: A window on mind and brain (pp. 341-372). Amsterdam: Elsevier.


92. Frazier, L., & Flores D'Arcais, G.B. (1989). Filler driven parsing: A study of gap filling in Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 331-344.


93. Horowitz, T. S., Fine, E. M., Fencsik, D. E., Yurgenson, S., & Wolfe, J. M. (2007). Fixational eye movements are not an index of covert attention. Psychological Science, 18, 356- 363.


94. Drieghe, D. (2008). Foveal processing and word skipping during reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 856-860.


95. Geburtsort: Potsdam Nationalität: Deutsch Ausbildung 09/2010 Promotion zum Dr. phil. an der Philipps-Universität Marburg 02/2010 – 05/2010


96. Gestern wurde dem Botschafter die Gefangene übergeben, erklärte Hans


97. Gestern wurde dem Dozenten das Manuskript gezeigt, bestätigte Ulla


98. Gestern wurde dem Ermittler die Angeklagte entrissen, erwähnte Meike


99. Gestern wurde dem Fachmann der Befund übergeben, erklärte Maria


100. Gestern wurde dem Fachmann der Lehrling übergeben, erklärte Meike


101. Gestern wurde dem Teenager der Betreuer gezeigt, bestätigte Lisa


102. Gestern wurde dem Zöllner die Schuldige entrissen, erwähnte Jutta


103. Bornkessel, I., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2002). Grammar overrides frequency: evidence from the online processing of flexible word order. Cognition, 85, B21-30.


104. Heute wurde dem Bauern der Hahn verkauft, erklärte Ronny 23. Neulich wurde dem Wärter der Dackel geraubt, vermutete Meike 24. Soeben wurde dem Herzog der Diener angeboten, erwähnte Jörg


105. Heute wurde dem Hirten das Schaf geklaut, erwähnte Jens 15. Neulich wurde dem Aufseher der Häftling entzogen, beharrte Maria


106. Heute wurde dem Jungen der Hund geklaut, erwähnte Anna 35. Neulich wurde dem Berater der Kunde entzogen, beharrte Jutta 36. Soeben wurde dem Fahrer der Gast zugeteilt, bestätigte Klaus


107. Heute wurde dem Kranken der Pfleger zugewiesen, beharrte Jörg Dative-before-nominative clause, inanimate nominative NP (DAT-NOM – AI)


108. Heute wurde dem Mediziner die Patientin überlassen, vermutete Jörg 9. Neulich wurde dem Forscher der Helfer gesandt, erwähnte Ulla 10. Soeben wurde dem Oberst der Soldat empfohlen, beharrte Malte


109. Heute wurde dem Polizisten der Verbrecher überlassen, vermutete Petra 29. Neulich wurde dem Verwundeten der Sanitäter gesandt, erwähnte Nora


110. Heute wurde dem Professor der Mitarbeiter zugewiesen, beharrte Klaus


111. Heute wurde dem Reiter der Sattel verkauft, erklärte Malte 3. Neulich wurde dem Clown das Kostüm geraubt, vermutete Hans


112. Stipendium zur Fertigstellung der Promotion am Lehrstuhl für Neurolinguistik von Prof. Dr. Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky an der Philipps-Universität Marburg 02/2007 – 01/2010 Promotionsstipendium der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) im Rahmen des Graduiertenkollegs " Neuronal Representation and Action Control " (GK 885/1) 10/2003 – 12/2006 M.A. (Magister Artium); Hauptstudium in den Fächern Deutsche Sprache und Literatur sowie Politikwissenschaft an der Philipps- Universität Marburg 10/2002 – 07/2003 Erasmusstipendium an der University of Aberdeen; Fächer: German Studies und Politics and International Relations 10/2000 – 09/2002 M.A. (Magister Artium); Grundstudium in den Fächern Germanistik und Politikwissenschaft an der Ernst-Moritz-Arndt- Universität Greifswald Wissenschaftlicher Werdegang seit 06/2010


113. Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (1991). Influences of semantic and syntactic context on open- and closed-class words. Memory & Cognition, 19, 95-112.


114. Wang, C. A., Inhoff, A. W., & Radach, R. (2009). Is attention confined to one word at a time? The spatial distribution of parafoveal preview benefits during reading. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 71, 1487-1494.


115. Donchin, E., & Coles, M. G. H. (1988). Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 357-374.


116. Jetzt wurde dem Buben der Welpe geschenkt, bestätigte Maria 32. Eben wurde dem Rentner der Vogel gestohlen, erklärte Josef 33. Gestern wurde dem Onkel das Kind abgenommen, vermutete Bert


117. Jetzt wurde dem Handwerker der Anfänger geliefert, beharrte Ulla 26. Eben wurde dem Maler das Model geschickt, bestätigte Malte


118. Jetzt wurde dem Jäger der Hirsch geschenkt, bestätigte Hans 12. Eben wurde dem Züchter die Schlange gestohlen, erklärte Petra 13. Gestern wurde dem Vater der Sohn abgenommen, vermutete Nora


119. Jetzt wurde dem Minister der Wähler gegönnt, erklärte Bert 18. Eben wurde dem Direktor der Arbeiter geliehen, vermutete Anna


120. Jetzt wurde dem Verräter der Mörder gegönnt, erklärte Lisa


121. Brookhuis, K. A., Mulder, G., Mulder, L. J., Gloerich, A. B., van Dellen, H. J., van der Meere, J. J. et al. (1981). Late positive components and stimulus evaluation time. Biological Psychology, 13, 107-123.


122. Kliegl, R., Grabner, E., Rolfs, M., & Engbert, R. (2004). Length, frequency, and predictability effects of words on eye movements in reading. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 262-284.


123. Lima, S. D., & Inhoff, A. W. (1985). Lexical access during eye fixations in reading: Effects of word-initial letter sequence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 272-285.


124. Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 429-446.


125. Morris, R. K. (1994). Lexical and message-level sentence context effects on fixation times in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 92-103.


126. Vainio, S., Hyönä, J., & Pajunen, A. (2009). Lexical predictability exerts robust effects on fixation duration, but not on initial landing position during reading. Experimental Psychology, 56, 66-74.


127. Irwin, D. E. (1998). Lexical processing during saccadic eye movements. Cognitive Psychology, 36, 1-27.


128. Dimigen, O., Sommer, W., & Kliegl, R. (2007). Long reading regressions are accompanied by a P600-like brain potential. Paper presented at the European Conference on Eye Movements, Potsdam.


129. Chwilla, D. J., Kolk, H. H., & Mulder, G. (2000). Mediated priming in the lexical decision task: Evidence from event-related potentials and reaction time. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 314-341.


130. Horowitz, T. S., Fencsik, D. E., Fine, E. M., Yurgenson, S., & Wolfe, J. M. (2007). Microsaccades and attention. Does a weak correlation make an index? Reply to Laubrock, Engbert, Rolfs, and Kliegl (2007). Psychological Science, 18, 367-368.


131. Laubrock, J., Engbert, R., Rolfs, M., & Kliegl, R. (2007). Microsaccades are an index of covert attention: commentary on Horowitz, Fine, Fencsik, Yurgenson, and Wolfe (2007). Psychological Science, 18, 364-366.


132. Brysbeart, M.,, & Mitchell, D.C. (1996). Modifier attachment in sentence parsing: Evidence from Dutch. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 664-695.


133. McCarthy, G., & Nobre, A. C. (1993). Modulation of semantic processing by spatial selective attention. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 88, 210-219.


134. Heute wurde dem Mediziner der Notfall überlassen, vermutete Josef 9. Neulich wurde dem Forscher der Artikel gesandt, erwähnte Bert 10. Soeben wurde dem Oberst der Sektor empfohlen, beharrte Anna Curriculum vitae Name: Franziska Kretzschmar Geburtsdatum: 25. Dezember 1980


135. Mitchell, D. C. (2004). On-Line Methods in Language Processing: Introduction and Historical Review. In M. Carreiras & C. Clifton, Jr. (Eds.), The on-line study of sentence comprehension: eyetracking, ERPs and beyond (pp. 15-32). New York: Psychology Press.


136. Duncan-Johnson, C. C., & Donchin, E. (1977). On quantifying surprise: the variation of event-related potentials with subjective probability. Psychophysiology, 14, 456-467.


137. Magliero, A., Bashore, T. R., Coles, M. G., & Donchin, E. (1984). On the dependence of P300 latency on stimulus evaluation processes. Psychophysiology, 21, 171-186.


138. Crocker, M. W. (1994). On the nature of the principle-based sentence processor. In C. Clifton, Jr., L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 245-266). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.


139. Johnson, R. J. (1993). On the neural generators of the P300 component of the event-related potential. Psychophysiology, 30, 90-97.


140. Isreal, J. B., Chesney, G. L., Wickens, C. D., & Donchin, E. (1980). P300 and tracking difficulty: evidence for multiple resources in dual-task performance. Psychophysiology, 17, 259-273.


141. Katayama, J., & Polich, J. (1996). P300 from one-, two-, and three-stimulus auditory paradigms. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 23, 33-40.


142. Combs, L. A., & Polich, J. (2006). P3a from auditory white noise stimuli. Clinical Neurophysiology, 117, 1106-1112.


143. Hagen, G. F., Gatherwright, J. R., Lopez, B. A., & Polich, J. (2006). P3a from visual stimuli: task difficulty effects. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 59, 8-14.


144. Courchesne, E., Hillyard, S. A., & Courchesne, R. Y. (1977). P3 waves to the discrimination of targets in homogeneous and heterogeneous stimulus sequences. Psychophysiology, 14, 590-597.


145. Kennedy, A. (2008). Parafoveal-on-foveal effects are not an artifact of mis-located saccades. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 2, 1-10.


146. McDonald, S. A. (2006). Parafoveal preview benefit in reading is only obtained from the saccade goal. Vision Research, 46, 4416-4424.


147. Kennedy, A. (2000). Parafoveal processing in word recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A, 429-455.


148. Dien, J., Spencer, K. M., & Donchin, E. (2004). Parsing the late positive complex: mental chronometry and the ERP components that inhabit the neighborhood of the P300. Psychophysiology, 41, 665-678.


149. Wickens, C., Kramer, A., Vanasse, L., & Donchin, E. (1983). Performance of concurrent tasks: a psychophysiological analysis of the reciprocity of information-processing resources. Science, 221, 1080-1082.


150. Kramer, A. F., Wickens, C. D., & Donchin, E. (1985). Processing of stimulus properties: evidence for dual-task integrality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 393-408.


151. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2009a). Processing Syntax and Morphology: A neurocognitive perspective (6). Oxford: Oxford University Press.


152. Kretzschmar, F., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., Staub, A., Roehm, D., & Schlesewsky, M. (in press). Prominence facilitates ambiguity resolution: On the interaction between specificity and word order in syntactic reanalysis. In M. J. A. Lamers & P. de Swart (Eds.), Case, Word Order, and Prominence: Psycholinguistic and theoretical approaches to argument structure. Berlin: Springer.


153. Yan, M., Richter, E. M., Shu, H., & Kliegl, R. (2009). Readers of Chinese extract semantic information from parafoveal words. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 561-566.


154. Chen (Eds.), Reading development in Chinese children (pp. 157-169). Westport, CT: Praeger.


155. Kaan, E., & Swaab, T. Y. (2003). Repair, revision, and complexity in syntactic analysis: an electrophysiological differentiation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 98-110. REFERENCES 267


156. Kiefer, M., Weisbrod, M., Kern, I., Maier, S., & Spitzer, M. (1998). Right hemisphere activation during indirect semantic priming: evidence from event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 64, 377-408.


157. Hill, H., Ott, F., & Weisbrod, M. (2005). SOA-dependent N400 and P300 semantic priming effects using pseudoword primes and a delayed lexical decision. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 56, 209-221.


158. Soeben wurde dem Sportler der Trainer empfohlen, beharrte Jens


159. Soeben wurde dem Verkäufer der Betrieb angeboten, erwähnte Petra


160. Soeben wurde dem Verkäufer die Kollegin angeboten, erwähnte Klaus


161. Luck, S. J. (1998). Sources of dual-task interference: Evidence from human electrophysiology. Psychological Science, 9, 223-227.


162. Lehrbeauftragte im Bereich Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft und im Studium Generale (Stiftungsprofessur " Sprache und Gehirn " 2010) an der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz 02/2007 – 09/2010 Doktorandin an der Philipps-Universität Marburg Publikationen Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., Kretzschmar, F., Tune, S., Wang, L., Genç, S., Philipp, M., Roehm, D., & Schlesewsky, M. (2011). Think globally: Cross-linguistic variation in electrophysiological activity during sentence comprehension. Brain and Language, 3, 133- 152.


163. Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). Spreading activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407-428.


164. Kounios, J., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Structure and process in semantic memory: evidence from event-related brain potentials and reaction times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 459-479.


165. Donchin, E. (1981). Surprise! Surprise? Psychophysiology, 18, 493-513.


166. Verleger, R., Jaskowski, P., & Wauschkuhn, B. (1994). Suspense and surprise: on the relationship between expectancies and P3. Psychophysiology, 31, 359-369. REFERENCES 275


167. McElree, B., & Griffith, T. (1995). Syntactic and thematic processing in sentence comprehension: Evidence for a temporal dissociation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 134-157.


168. Luck, S. J. (2004). Ten simple rules for designing ERP experiments. In E. C. Handy (Ed.), Event-Related Potentials: A methods book (pp. 17-32). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.


169. Chen, H.-C., Tang, C.-K. (1998). The effective visual field in Chinese. Reading and Writing, 10, 245-254.


170. Christensen, C. A., Ford, J. M., & Pfefferbaum, A. (1996). The effect of stimulus-response incompatibility on P3 latency depends on the task but not on age. Biological Psychology, 44, 121-141.


171. Squires, K. C., Wickens, C., Squires, N. K., & Donchin, E. (1976). The effect of stimulus sequence on the waveform of the cortical event-related potential. Science, 193(4258), 1142-1146.


172. Yan, G., Tian, H., Bai, X., & Rayner, K. (2006). The effect of word and character frequency on the eye movements of Chinese readers. British Journal of Psychology, 97, 259-268.


173. McCarthy, G., & Donchin, E. (1976). The effects of temporal and event uncertainty in determining the waveforms of the auditory event related potential (ERP).


174. Selbständigkeitserklärung Hiermit erkläre ich, dass ich meine Dissertation mit dem Titel " The electrophysiological reality of parafoveal processing: On the validity of language-related ERPs in natural reading " selbständig ohne unerlaubte Hilfe angefertigt, keine anderen als die angegebenen Hilfsmittel verwendet und alle Stellen, die anderen Quellen dem Sinn nach entnommen sind, durch Angabe der Herkunft kenntlich gemacht habe. Alle wörtlich entnommenen Stellen habe ich als Zitate gekennzeichnet.


175. Isreal, J. B., Wickens, C. D., Chesney, G., & Donchin, E. (1980). The event-related brain potential as an index of display-monitoring workload. Human Factors, 22, 211-224.


176. Chwilla, D. J., Brown, C. M., & Hagoort, P. (1995). The N400 as a function of the level of processing. Psychophysiology, 32, 274-285.


177. Kutas, M., & Iragui, V. (1998). The N400 in a semantic categorization task across 6 decades. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 108, 456-471.


178. Dien, J. (2009). The neurocognitive basis of reading single words as seen through early latency ERPs: a model of converging pathways. Biological Psychology, 80, 10-22.


179. Frisch, S., Schlesewsky, M., Saddy, D., & Alpermann, A. (2002). The P600 as an indicator of syntactic ambiguity. Cognition, 85, B83-92.


180. Inhoff, A. W., & Liu, W. (1998). The perceptual span and oculomotor activity during the reading of Chinese sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(1), 20-34.


181. Staub, A. (2007b). The return of the repressed: Abandoned parses facilitate syntactic reanalysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 299-323.


182. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2009b). The Role of Prominence Information in the Real-Time Comprehension of Transitive Constructions: A Cross- Linguistic Approach. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3, 19-58.


183. Koivisto, M., Revonsuo, A. (2008). The role of selective attention in visual awareness of stimulus features: Electrophysiological studies. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 8, 195-210.


184. McConkie, G. W., & Rayner, K. (1975). The span of effective stimulus during a fixation in reading. Perception & Psychophysics, 17, 578-586.


185. Kiefer, M., Marzinzik, F., Weisbrod,M., Scherg, M., & Spitzer, M. (1998). The time course of brain activations during response inhibition: evidence from event-related potentials in a go/no-go task. Neuroreport, 9, 765-770.


186. Staub, A., Rayner, K., Pollatsek, A., Hyona, J., & Majewski, H. (2007). The time course of plausibility effects on eye movements in reading: evidence from noun-noun compounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 1162-1169.


187. Clifton, C., Traxler, M. J., Mohamed, M. T., Williams, R. S., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (2003). The use of thematic role information in parsing: Syntactic processing autonomy revisited. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 317-334.


188. Verleger, R. (1998). Toward an integration of P3 research with cognitive neuroscience. Behavioral and brain sciences, 21, 149-168.


189. Knoeferle, P., Habets, B., Crocker, M.W., & Münte, T.F. (2008). Visual scenes trigger immediate syntactic reanalysis: Evidence from ERPs during situated spoken comprehension. Cerebral Cortex, 18, 789-795.


190. Wijers, A.A:, Okita, T., Mulder, G., Mulder, L.J.M., Lorist, M.M., Poiesz, R., & Scheffers, M.K. (1987). Visual search and spatial attention: ERPs in focussed and divided attention conditions. Biological Psychology, 25, 33-60.


191. Dogil, G., Frese, I., Haider, H., Roehm, D., & Wokurek, W. (2004). Where and how does grammatically geared processing take place--and why is Broca's area often involved. A coordinated fMRI/ERBP study of language processing. Brain and Language, 89, 337- 345.


192. Tsai, J. L., McConkie, G.W. (2003). Where do Chinese reades send their eyes? In J. Hyönä, R. Radach, & H. Deubel (Eds.), The Mind's Eye: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research (pp. 159-176). Amsterdam: Elsevier.


193. Bornkessel, I., Zysset, S., Friederici, A.D., von Cramon, Y., & Schlesewsky, M. (2005). Who did what to whom? The neural basis of argument hierarchies during language comprehension. Neuroimage, 26, 221-233.


194. Wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin am Department of English and Linguistics an der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz 2009 – 2011


195. Lenerz, J. (1977). Zur Abfolge nominaler Satzglieder im Deutschen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.


196. Verleger, R. (1997). On the utility of P3 latency as an index of mental chronometry. Psychophysiology, 34, 131-156.


197. Welcome to the real world: validating fixation-related brain potentials for ecologically valid settings. Brain Research, 1172, 124-129.


198. Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2001). Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1411-1423.


199. Chace, K. H., Rayner, K., & Well, A. D. (2005). Eye movements and phonological parafoveal preview: effects of reading skill. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 209-217.


200. Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements and the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178-210.


201. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980a). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207, 203-205.


202. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1984b). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307, 161-163.


203. Staub, A., & Clifton, C. J. (2006). Syntactic prediction in language comprehension: evidence from either.or. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 425-436.


204. Camblin, C. C., Gordon, P. C., & Swaab, T. Y. (2007). The interplay of discourse congruence and lexical association during sentence processing: Evidence from ERPs and eye tracking. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 103-128.


205. Juhasz, B. J., White, S. J., Liversedge, S. P., & Rayner, K. (2008). Eye movements and the use of parafoveal word length information in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 1560-1579.


206. Inhoff, A. W., & Wu, C. (2005). Eye movements and the identification of spatially ambiguous words during chinese sentence reading. Memory & Cognition, 33, 1345-1356.


207. Ditman, T., Holcomb, P. J., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2007). An investigation of concurrent ERP and self-paced reading methodologies. Psychophysiology, 44, 927-935.


208. Grainger, J., & Holcomb, P.J. (2009). Watching the word go by: On the time-course of component processes in visual word recognition. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3, 128-156.


209. Laszlo, S., & Federmeier, K. D. (2009). A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood: An Event- Related Potential Study of Lexical Relationships and Prediction in Context. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 326-338.


210. Dambacher, M., & Kliegl, R. (2007). Synchronizing timelines: relations between fixation durations and N400 amplitudes during sentence reading. Brain Research, 1155, 147- 162.


211. Sutton, S., Braren, M., Zubin, J., & John, E. R. (1965). Evoked-potential correlates of stimulus uncertainty. Science, 150, 1187-1188.


212. Kutas, M., McCarthy, G., & Donchin, E. (1977). Augmenting mental chronometry: the P300 as a measure of stimulus evaluation time. Science, 197, 792-795.


213. Coulson, S., King, J. W., & Kutas, M. (1998a). Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, 21-58.


214. Kliegl, R., Risse, S., & Laubrock, J. (2007). Preview benefit and parafoveal-on-foveal effects from word n + 2. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 1250-1255.


215. Kliegl, R., Nuthmann, A., & Engbert, R. (2006). Tracking the mind during reading: the influence of past, present, and future words on fixation durations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 12-35.