Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-mnl9s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-20T05:02:30.501Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Electrophysiology in the study of developmental language impairments: Prospects and challenges for a top-down approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2005

COLIN PHILLIPS
COLIN PHILLIPS
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is a good deal of interest in the application of neurocognitive techniques to investigate the underpinnings of developmental language impairments (DLIs). Electrophysiological techniques such as electroencephalography and magnetoencephalography offer the promise of the ability to track brain activity with precision in time and space. This article describes a number of findings from studies of normal adults and children that are relevant to neurocognitive studies of developmental language impairments and outlines a series of challenges that should be met in order for electrophysiological measures to realize their promise.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , January 2005 , pp. 79 - 96
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Atchley R. A., Rice M. L., Betz S. K., Kwasney K. M., Sereno J. A., & Jongman A. (in press). A comparison of semantic and syntactic event related potentials generated by children and adults. Brain and Language.
Aziz M., Stathopulu E., Callias M., Taylor C., Turk J., Oostra B., Willemsen R., & Patton M. 2003. Clinical features of boys with fragile X permutations and intermediate alleles. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B, 121B, 119– 127.Google Scholar
Bastiaansen M., & Hagoort P. 2003. Event-induced theta responses as a window on the dynamics of memory. Cortex, 39, 967– 992.Google Scholar
Bell A. J., & Sejnowski T. J. 1995. An information-maximization approach to blind separation and blind deconvolution. Neural Computation, 7, 1129– 1159.Google Scholar
Bornkessel I., McElree B., Schlesewsky M., & Friederici A. D. (in press). Multi-dimensional contributions to garden-path strength: Dissociating phrase structure from relational structure. Journal of Memory and Language.
Cheour M., Ceponiene R., Lehtokoski A., Luuk A., Allik J., Alho K., & Näätänen R. 1998. Development of language-specific phoneme representations in the infant brain. Nature Neuroscience, 1, 351– 353.Google Scholar
Cheour M., Leppänen P. H. T., & Kraus N. 2000. Mismatch negativity (MMN) as a tool for investigating discrimination and sensory memory in infants and children. Clinical Neurophysiology, 111, 4– 16.Google Scholar
Clahsen H., & Temple C. 2003. Words and rules in Williams syndrome. In Y. Levy & J. Schaeffer (Eds.), Language competence across populations: Toward a definition of specific language impairment (pp. 323– 352). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
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.Google Scholar
Coch D., & Holcomb P. J. 2003. The N400 in beginning readers. Developmental Psychobiology, 43, 146– 166.Google Scholar
Coch D., Maron L., Wolf M., & Holcomb P. 2002. Word and picture processing in children: An event-related potential study. Developmental Neuropsychology, 22, 373– 406.Google Scholar
Coulson S., King J. W., & Kutas M. 1998. Expect the unexpected: Event related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, 21– 58.Google Scholar
Dehaene–Lambertz G., Dupoux E., & Gout A. 2000. Electrophysiological correlates of phonological processing: A cross-linguistic study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 635– 647.Google Scholar
Dykman R. A., Ackerman P. T., Loizou P. C., & Casey P. H. 2000. An event-related potential study of older children with an early history of failure to thrive. Developmental Neuropsychology, 18, 187– 212.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Fiebach C., Schlesewsky M., & Friederici A. 2002. Separating syntactic memory costs and syntactic integration costs during parsing: The processing of German WH-questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 250– 272.Google Scholar
Fischler I., Bloom P. A., Childers D. G., Roucos S. E., & Perry N. W. 1983. Brain potentials related to stages of sentence verification. Psychophysiology, 20, 400– 409.Google Scholar
Fowler A., Gelman S., & Gleitman L. 1994. The course of language learning in children with Down syndrome. In H. Tager–Flusberg (Ed.), Constraints on language acquisition (pp. 91– 140). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Frazier L. 1987. Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Frazier L., & Rayner K. 1982. Making and correcting errors in sentence comprehension: Eye-movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178– 210.Google Scholar
Friederici A. D. 1995. The time-course of syntactic activation during language processing: A model based on neuropsychological and neurophysiological data. Brain and Language, 50, 259– 281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friederici A. D. 2002. Towards a neural basis for auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 78– 84.Google Scholar
Friederici A. D., & Hahne A. 2001. Development patterns of brain activity reflecting semantic and syntactic processes. In J. Weissenborn & B. Höhle (Eds.), Approaches to bootstrapping: Phonological, lexical, syntactic, and neurophysiological aspects of early Language Acquisition (pp. 231– 246). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Friederici A. D., Hahne A., & von Cramon D. Y. 1998. First-pass versus second-pass processes in a Wernicke's and a Broca's aphasic: Electro-physiological evidence for a double dissociation. Brain and Language, 62, 311– 341.Google Scholar
Friederici A. D., & Kilborn K. 1989. Temporal constraints on language processing: Syntactic priming in Broca's aphasia. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 1, 262– 272.Google Scholar
Friederici A. D., & Kotz S. A. 2003. The brain basis of syntactic processes: Functional imaging and lesion studies. NeuroImage, 20, S8– S17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friederici A. D., Pfeifer E., & Hahne A. 1993. Event-related brain potentials during natural speech processing: Effects of semantic, morphological, and syntactic violations. Cognitive Brain Research, 1, 183– 192.Google Scholar
Friederici A. D., von Cramon D. Y., & Kotz S. A. 1999. Language-related brain potentials in patients cortical and subcortical left hemisphere lesions. Brain, 122, 1033– 1047.Google Scholar
Friederici A. D., Wang Y., Herrmann C. S., Maess B., & Oertel U. 2000. Localization of early syntactic processes in frontal and temporal cortical areas: A magnetoencephalographic study. Human Brain Mapping, 11, 1– 11.Google Scholar
Garnsey S. M., Tanenhaus M. K., & Chapman R. M. 1989. Evoked potentials and the study of sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 51– 60.Google Scholar
Haarmann H. J., & Kolk H. H. J. 1991. Syntactic priming in Broca's aphasia: Evidence for slow activation. Aphasiology, 5, 247– 263.Google Scholar
Hagoort P. 1993. Impairments of lexical–semantic processing in aphasia: Evidence from the processing of lexical ambiguities. Brain and Language, 45, 189– 232.Google Scholar
Hagoort P., Brown C. M., & Groothusen J. 1992. The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 439– 484.Google Scholar
Hagoort P., Brown C. M., & Osterhout L. 1999. The neurocognition of syntactic processing. In C. M. Brown & P. Hagoort (Eds.), The neurocognition of language (pp. 273– 316). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hagoort P., Wassenaar M., & Brown C. 2003. Real-time semantic compensation in patients with agrammatic comprehension: Evidence for dual-route plasticity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 100, 4340– 4345.Google Scholar
Hahne A., & Friederici A. D. 1999. Electrophysiological evidence for two steps in syntactic analysis: Early automatic and late controlled processes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 193– 204.Google Scholar
Halgren E., Dhond R. P., Christiansen N., van Petten C., Marinkovic K., Lewine J. D., & Dale A. M. 2002. N400-like magnetoencephalography responses modulated by semantic context, word frequency, and lexical class in sentences. Neuroimage, 17, 1101– 1116.Google Scholar
Helenius P., Salmelin R., Service E., & Connolly J. F. 1998. Distinct time courses of word and context comprehension in left temporal cortex. Brain, 121, 1133– 1142.Google Scholar
Holcomb P. J., Coffey S., & Neville H. 1992. The effects of context on visual and auditory sentence processing: A developmental analysis using event-related brain potentials. Developmental Neuropsychology, 8, 203– 241.Google Scholar
Jackendoff R. S. 2002. Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kaan E., Harris A., Gibson E., & Holcomb P. 2000. The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 159– 201.Google Scholar
Kaan E., & Swaab T. Y. 2003. Electrophysiological evidence for serial sentence processing: A comparison between non-preferred and ungrammatical continuations. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 621– 635.Google Scholar
Karmiloff–Smith A., Grant J., Berthoud I., Davies M., Howlin P., & Udwin O. 1997. Language and Williams syndrome: How intact is “intact”? Child Development, 68, 246– 262.Google Scholar
Kempson R., Meyer–Viol W., & Gabbay D. 2001. Dynamic syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kim A., Chen J., Rippey C., & Osterhout L. 2003. Combinatory semantic processing can occur independently of syntactic support. Talk presented at the conference on Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing (AMLaP 2003), Glasgow, UK.
King J., & Kutas M. 1995. Who did what and when? Using word- and clause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 376– 395.Google Scholar
Kjelgaard M. M., & Tager–Flusberg H. 2001. An investigation of language impairment in autism: Implications for genetic subgroups. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16, 287– 308.Google Scholar
Koelsch S., Grossman T., Gunter T. C., Hahne A., Schröger E., & Friederici A. D. 2003. Children processing music: Electric brain responses reveal music competence and gender differences. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 683– 693.Google Scholar
Kotz S. A., & Friederici A. D. 2003. Electrophysiology of normal and pathological language processing. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 16, 43– 58.Google Scholar
Kurtzberg D., Vaughan H. G., Kreuzer J. A., & Fliegler K. Z. 1995. Developmental studies and clinical application of mismatch negativity: Problems and prospects. Ear and Hearing, 16, 117– 129.Google Scholar
Kutas M., & Federmeier K. 2000. Electrophysiology reflects semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 463– 470.Google Scholar
Kutas M., & Hillyard S. A. 1980. Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207, 203– 205.Google Scholar
Kutas M., & Hillyard S. A. 1984. Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307, 161– 163.Google Scholar
Leonard L. 1997. Children with specific language impairment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Levelt W. J. M., Praamstra P., Meyer A. S., Helenius P., & Salmelin R. 1998. An MEG study of picture naming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 553– 567.Google Scholar
Lück M., Hahne A., & Clahsen A. 2001. How brain potentials develop: An ERP study about the processing of German noun plurals in adults and children. In A. D. Friederici & D. Y. von Cramon (Eds.), Max Planck Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience Annual Report 2001 (pp. 55– 56). Available on-line at http://cns.mpg.d.
MacDonald M. C., Pearlmutter N. J., & Seidenberg M. S. 1994. The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676– 703.Google Scholar
Makeig S., Debener S., Onton J., & Delorme A. 2004. Mining event-related brain dynamics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 204– 210.Google Scholar
Makeig S., Westerfield M., Jung T.-P., Covington J., Townsend J., Sejnowski T. J., & Courchesne E. 1999. Functionally independent components of the late positive event-related potential during visual spatial attention. Journal of Neuroscience, 19, 2665– 2680.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Milberg W., Blumstein S. E., Katz D., Gerschberg F., & Brown T. 1995. Semantic facilitation in aphasia—Effects of time and expectancy. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 33– 50.Google Scholar
Mills D., & Schweisguth M. 2001, February. Developmental changes in sentence processing: Electrophysiological responses to semantic and syntactic anomalies in 3 to 4 year old children and adults. Talk presented at the University of California at San Diego, Center for Research on Language. Available on-line at http://crl.ucsd.edu/pdpnlp/abstract/20010227.htm.
Müller R.-A. 2005. Neurocognitive studies of language impairments. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26, 65– 78.Google Scholar
Münte T. E., Heinze H. J., & Mangun G. R. 1993. Dissociation of brain activity related to syntactic and semantic aspects of language. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 335– 344.Google Scholar
Näätänen R., Lehtokoski A., Lennes M., Cheour M., Huotilainen M., Ilvonen A., Vainio M., Alku P., Ilmoniemi R., Luuk A., Allik J., Sinkkonen J., & Alho K. 1997. Language-specific phoneme representations revealed by electric and magnetic brain responses. Nature, 385, 432– 434.Google Scholar
Näätänen R., & Winkler I. 1999. The concept of auditory stimulus representation in cognitive neuroscience. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 826– 859.Google Scholar
Neville H., Nicol J., Barss A., Forster K. I., & Garrett M. I. 1991. Syntactically-based sentence processing classes: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 151– 165.Google Scholar
Obleser J., Lahiri A., & Eulitz C. 2003. Auditory-evoked magnetic field codes place of articulation in timing and topography around 100 milliseconds post syllable onset. NeuroImage, 20, 1839– 1847.Google Scholar
Osterhout L., & Holcomb P. J. 1992. Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 785– 806.Google Scholar
Osterhout L., & Mobley L. A. 1995. Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 739– 773.Google Scholar
Phillips C. 2001. Levels of representation in the electrophysiology of speech perception. Cognitive Science, 25, 711– 731.Google Scholar
Phillips C. 2003. Linear order and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry, 34, 37– 90.Google Scholar
Phillips C. 2004. Linguistics and linking problems. In M. Rice & S. Warren (Eds.), Developmental language disorders: From phenotypes to etiologies (pp. 241– 287). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Phillips C., Kazanina N., & Abada S. (in press). ERP effects of the processing of syntactic long-distance dependencies. Cognitive Brain Research.
Phillips C., Pellathy T., Marantz A., Yellin E, Wexler K, Poeppel D., McGinnis M., & Roberts T. 2000. Auditory cortex accesses phonological categories: An MEG mismatch study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 1038– 1055.Google Scholar
Poeppel D., Phillips C., Yellin E., Rowley H., Roberts T., & Marantz A. 1997. Processing of vowels in supratemporal auditory cortex. Neuroscience Letters, 221, 145– 148.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen L., & Marantz A. 2003. Tracking the time course of word recognition with MEG. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 187– 189.Google Scholar
Rice M. L. 2002. A unified model of specific and general language delay: Grammatical tense as a clinical marker of unexpected variation. In Y. Levy & J. Schaeffer (Eds.), Language competence across populations: Toward a definition of specific language impairment (pp. 63– 95). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rice M. L., Wexler K., & Cleave P. L. 1995. Specific language impairment as a period of extended optional infinitive. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 38, 850– 863.Google Scholar
Sanders L. D., Newport E. L., & Neville H. J. 2002. Segmenting nonsense: An event-related potential index of perceived onsets in continuous speech. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 700– 703.Google Scholar
Schopmeyer B. B., & Lowe F. 1992. Speech and language characteristics in fragile X syndrome. In B. B. Schopmeyer & F. Lowe (Eds.), The fragile X child (pp. 71– 89). San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing.
Spivey–Knowlton M. J., & Tanenhaus M. K. 1998. Syntactic ambiguity resolution in discourse: Modeling the effects of referential context and lexical frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1521– 1543.Google Scholar
Stavrakaki S. 2001. Comprehension of reversible relative clauses in specifically language impaired and normally developing Greek children. Brain and Language, 77, 419– 431.Google Scholar
Steedman M. 2000. The syntactic process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Swaab T. A., Brown C., & Hagoort P. 1997. Spoken sentence comprehension in aphasia: Event-related potentials evidence for a lexical integration deficit. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 39– 66.Google Scholar
Tabor W., Galantucci B., & Richardson D. 2004. Effects of merely local syntactic coherence on sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 355– 370.Google Scholar
Tallon–Baudry C., & Bertrand O. 1997. Oscillatory gamma activity in humans and its role in object perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 151– 162.Google Scholar
Thomas M. S. C., Grant J., Barham Z., Gsödl M., Laing E., Lakusta L., Tyler L. K., Grice S., Paterson S., & Karmiloff–Smith A. 2001. Past tense formation in Williams syndrome. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16, 143– 176.Google Scholar
Trueswell J. C., Tanenhaus M. K., & Garnsey S. M. 1994. Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285– 318.Google Scholar
Tyler L. K., Ostrin R. K., Cooke M., & Moss H. E. 1995. Automatic access of information in Broca's aphasics: Against the automaticity hypothesis. Brain and Language, 48, 131– 162.Google Scholar
van der Lely H. K. J., & Battell J. 2003. Wh- movement in children with grammatical SLI: A test of the RDDR hypothesis. Language, 79, 153– 181.Google Scholar
van Petten C., Kutas M., Kluender R., Mitchiner M., & McIsaac H. 1991. Fractionating the word-repetition effect with event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 131– 150.Google Scholar
Vosse T., & Kempen G. 2000. Syntactic structure assembly in human parsing: A computational model based on competitive inhibition and a lexicalist grammar. Cognition, 75, 105– 143.Google Scholar
Zukowski A. 2004. Investigating knowledge of complex syntax: Insights from experimental studies of Williams syndrome. In M. Rice & S. Warren (Eds.), Developmental language disorders: From phenotypes to etiologies (pp. 99– 119). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.