title: The relation between thematic role computing and semantic relatedness processing during on-line sentence comprehension.
abstract: Sentence comprehension involves timely computing different types of relations between its verbs and noun arguments, such as morphosyntactic, semantic, and thematic relations. Here, we used EEG technique to investigate the potential differences in thematic role computing and lexical-semantic relatedness processing during on-line sentence comprehension, and the interaction between these two types of processes. Mandarin Chinese sentences were used as materials. The basic structure of those sentences is "Noun+Verb+'le'+a two-character word", with the Noun being the initial argument. The verb disambiguates the initial argument as an agent or a patient. Meanwhile, the initial argument and the verb are highly or lowly semantically related. The ERPs at the verbs revealed that: relative to the agent condition, the patient condition evoked a larger N400 only when the argument and verb were lowly semantically related; however, relative to the high-relatedness condition, the low-relatedness condition elicited a larger N400 regardless of the thematic relation; although both thematic role variation and semantic relatedness variation elicited N400 effects, the N400 effect elicited by the former was broadly distributed and reached maximum over the frontal electrodes, and the N400 effect elicited by the latter had a posterior distribution. In addition, the brain oscillations results showed that, although thematic role variation (patient vs. agent) induced power decreases around the beta frequency band (15-30 Hz), semantic relatedness variation (low-relatedness vs. high-relatedness) induced power increases in the theta frequency band (4-7 Hz). These results suggested that, in the sentence context, thematic role computing is modulated by the semantic relatedness between the verb and its argument; semantic relatedness processing, however, is in some degree independent from the thematic relations. Moreover, our results indicated that, during on-line sentence comprehension, thematic role computing and semantic relatedness processing are mediated by distinct neural systems.
authors.affiliation: Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.
authors.forename: Xiaoqing
authors.initials: X
authors.lastname: Li
authors.affiliation: Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China; University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.
authors.forename: Haiyan
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Zhao
authors.affiliation: Academy of Psychology and Behavior, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin, China.
authors.forename: Yong
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Lu
mesh_terms: D032882:Comprehension; D005071:Evoked Potentials; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D011932:Reading; D012660:Semantics; D013067:Speech Perception; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2012 Nov;141(4):601-9
references.pmid: 22201413
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2009 Feb 1;44(3):1152-62
references.pmid: 18977304
references.citation: Brain Lang. 2007 Mar;100(3):223-37
references.pmid: 16546247
references.citation: Brain Lang. 2010 Feb;112(2):85-100
references.pmid: 20006378
references.citation: Cognition. 2003 Aug;89(1):B27-41
references.pmid: 12893127
references.citation: Cognition. 1999 Dec 17;73(3):247-64
references.pmid: 10585516
references.citation: Brain Lang. 2010 Jul;114(1):16-25
references.pmid: 20403632
references.citation: Neurosci Lett. 2005 Aug 26;384(3):222-7
references.pmid: 15894426
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2003 Nov;20 Suppl 1:S18-29
references.pmid: 14597293
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2008 Mar 1;40(1):367-88
references.pmid: 18248739
references.citation: Brain Lang. 2009 Apr;109(1):1-17
references.pmid: 19223065
references.citation: Annu Rev Psychol. 2011;62:621-47
references.pmid: 20809790
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 2010 Dec;22(12):2886-98
references.pmid: 19929760
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 2005 Mar;17(3):530-41
references.pmid: 15814011
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2002 Jan;109(1):35-54; discussion 55-74
references.pmid: 11863041
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 2010 Jul;22(7):1333-47
references.pmid: 19580386
references.citation: Brain Lang. 2008 Jul;106(1):15-28
references.pmid: 18262262
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 May 17;108(20):8520-4
references.pmid: 21540329
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2010 Apr 1;50(2):665-77
references.pmid: 20060478
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1994 Oct;101(4):676-703
references.pmid: 7984711
references.citation: Cognition. 2008 Jan;106(1):484-500
references.pmid: 17336956
references.citation: PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e35517
references.pmid: 22558163
references.citation: Cereb Cortex. 2009 Dec;19(12):2767-96
references.pmid: 19329570
references.citation: Science. 2004 Apr 16;304(5669):438-41
references.pmid: 15031438
references.citation: Front Psychol. 2012 Jun 25;3:201
references.pmid: 22737138
references.citation: Brain Lang. 2008 Nov;107(2):133-57
references.pmid: 18667231
references.citation: Brain. 2009 Dec;132(Pt 12):3411-27
references.pmid: 19942676
references.citation: Nat Rev Neurosci. 2007 Dec;8(12):976-87
references.pmid: 18026167
references.citation: Int J Psychophysiol. 2008 May;68(2):111-22
references.pmid: 18316134
references.citation: Brain Lang. 2006 Jan;96(1):90-105
references.pmid: 16083953
references.citation: Neuroscience. 2011 Dec 1;197:191-9
references.pmid: 21958866
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2002 Feb 1;6(2):78-84
references.pmid: 15866191
references.citation: Cogn Neuropsychol. 2010 Feb;27(1):46-71
references.pmid: 20658386