G61.2710-001/G89.3402-001:

Neurolinguistics (31587), Fall 2007

Liina Pylkkänen (liina.pylkkanen@nyu.edu)
Wednesday 4:45PM-7:30PM
726 Broadway, 701 (Linguistics Department Conference Room)

(a) Readings

• Come to class having done the obligatory readings.
  
• Choose a class in which you'll present a paper.

For your course project, you will design an MEG experiment, create the stimulus materials, and, hopefully, collect some preliminary data. The final paper will be a (progress) report of your study.

• By Sep 18 midnight, send me email indicating what paper you'd like to present in class.

• By Oct 8, come see me to discuss your project.

• Oct 19 midnight: Project proposals are due. The project proposal also serves as the first draft of your paper. Before writing your proposal, please read these general comments on project proposals. These comments pertained to all project proposals in Spring 2003 and by reading them in advance you'll be able to produce a better first draft of your paper.

• Oct 26 midnight: A draft of your experimental materials is due (email me an excel sheet). This should be as complete as possible. I'll get the materials back to you within a few days with feedback.

• Nov 5 midnight: Final experimental materials are due. Email me the revised excel-sheet and your updated project proposal where the Materials and Procedure sections of your Methods are now written up and your experimental materials appear as an Appendix.

• Dec 5: Final presentation on your project.

• Dec 7 midnight: Papers are due (please send them to me by email).

Obligatory readings are marked with a star (*).

SEP 5 GETTING ORGANIZED ABOUT PROJECTS

• Project presentations from students who've taken the class in previous years, to give you an idea of what types of projects you might be able to pursue.

SEP 12 FOUNDATIONAL ISSUES, BRAIN BASICS

• * Generative linguistics within the cognitive neuroscience of language. 2005, The Linguistic Review 22, 429-445.[pdf]

• * Poeppel, D. and Embick, D. (2005). The relation between linguistics and neuroscience. In A. Cutler (ed.), Twenty-First Century Psycholinguistics: Four Cornerstones. Lawrence Erlbaum. [pdf]

• Townsend, David J., and Thomas G. Bever (2001) Sentence Comprehension: The Integration of Habits and Rules. MIT Press. Chapter 1.

• Chomsky, N. 2000. Linguistics and Brain Science. In A Marantz et al., eds., Image, Language, Brain, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 13-28.

• Central Nervous System - Visual Perspectives
• The Human Brain website

• Brain Info Website

SEP 19 METHODS, HISTORY OF NEUROLINGUISTICS

• * Chapters 2 (MEG) & 3 (fMRI): Papanicolaou, A.C. Fundamentals of Functional Brain Imaging Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger, 1998.

• * Hari, R., S. Levänen, & T. Raij. 2000. Timing of human cortical functions during cognition: role of MEG. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 455-462.

• * Rugg & Coles, 1995. Electrophysiology of the Mind. Ch. 1 Coles & Rugg. Event-related potentials. An Introduction. Oxford.

  <>Ha¨ma¨la¨inen, M., Hari, R., Ilmoniemi, R. J. Knuutila, J., &Lounasmaa, O. L. (1993). Magnetoencephalography: Theory, instrumentation, and applications to noninvasive studies of the working human brain. Review of Modern Physics, 65, 413–495.

  Papers illustrating different methods
  

• Aphasia: Dronkers, N. 1996. A new brain region for coordinating speech articulation. Nature, 384, 159-161.

• PET: Stromswold, K, Caplan, D, Alpert, N, & Rauch, S. 1996. Localization of Syntactic Comprehension by Positron Emission Tomography. Brain and Language, 52, 452-473.

• FMRI: Embick, D, Marantz, A, Miyashita, Y, O'Neil,W, & Sakai, K. 2000. A Syntactic Specialization for Broca's Area. PNAS 97(11), 6150-6154.

• ERPs: Neville, H, Nicol, J, et al. 1991. Syntactically Based Sentence Processing Classes: Evidence from Event-Related Brain Potentials. J of Cog Neuro, 3 (2), 151-165.

OCT 3 SPEECH PERCEPTION: MODELS, AUDITORY EVOKED POTENTIALS/FIELDS, M100/N100, MMN

• Presentatation (Kana): Hertrich I, Mathiak K, Lutzenberger W, Menning H, Ackermann H. Sequential audiovisual interactions during speech perception: a whole-head MEG study. Neuropsychologia. 2007 Mar 25;45(6):1342-54. [pdf]

• Hickok G, Poeppel D. The cortical organization of speech processing. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2007 May;8(5):393-402. [pdf]

  M100:

• * Roberts, TPLR, Ferrari, P., Stufflebeam, S., Poeppel, D. (2000). Latency of the auditory evoked neuromagnetic field components:stimulus dependence and insights towards perception. J Clinical Neurophysiology 17: 114-129.

  Mismatch:

• * Phillips, C., Pellathy, T., Marantz, A., Yellin, E., Wexler, K., Poeppel, D., McGinnis, M. and Roberts, TPL (2000). Auditory Cortex Accesses Phonological Categories: An MEG Mismatch Study. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 12: 1038-1055.

• Naatanen R, Lehtokoski A, Lennes M, Cheour M, Huotilainen M, Iivonen A, Vainio M, Alku P, Ilmoniemi RJ, Luuk A, Allik J, Sinkkonen J, Alho K. Language-specific phoneme representations revealed by electric and magnetic brain responses. Nature. 1997 Jan 30;385(6615):432-4. [pdf]

• Dehaene-Lambertz G, Dupoux E, Gout A. Electrophysiological correlates of phonological processing: a cross-linguistic study. J Cogn Neurosci. 2000 Jul;12(4):635-47. [pdf]

• May PJ, Tiitinen H. The MMN is a derivative of the auditory N100 response. Neurol Clin Neurophysiol. 2004 Nov 30;2004:20. [pdf]

  McGurk:

• * Sams M, Aulanko R, Hamalainen M, Hari R, Lounasmaa OV, Lu ST, Simola J. Seeing speech: visual information from lip movements modifies activity in the human auditory cortex. Neurosci Lett. 1991 Jun 10;127(1):141-5. [pdf]

• Tuomainen J, Andersen TS, Tiippana K, Sams M. Audio-visual speech perception is special. Cognition. 2005 May;96(1):B13-22. Epub 2004 Dec 30. [pdf]

• van Wassenhove V, Grant KW, Poeppel D. Visual speech speeds up the neural processing of auditory speech. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Jan 25;102(4):1181-6. [pdf]

• Presentatation (Dylan): Reading in a deep orthography: neuromagnetic evidence for dual-mechanisms. Exp Brain Res. 2007 Jun;180(2):247-62. Epub 2007 Jan 26. [pdf]

• * Tarkiainen et al., Dynamics of visual feature analysis and object-level processing in face versus letter-string perception, Brain. 2002 May;125(Pt 5):1125-36.

• * Bruce McCandliss, Laurent Cohen, and Stanislas Dehaene. The visual word form area: Expertise for reading in the fusiform gyrus.Trends in Cognitive Science, 13:155-161, 2003.

• Vinckier F, Dehaene S, Jobert A, Dubus JP, Sigman M, Cohen L. Hierarchical coding of letter strings in the ventral stream: dissecting the inner organization of the visual word-form system. Neuron. 2007 Jul 5;55(1):143-56. [pdf]

• Liu J, Harris A, Kanwisher N. Stages of processing in face perception: an MEG study. Nat Neurosci. 2002 Sep;5(9):910-6. [pdf]

• Presentatation (Vincent): Proverbio AM, Del Zotto M, Zani A. (2007) The emergence of semantic categorization in early visual processing: ERP indices of animal vs. artifact recognition. [pdf]

• Salmelin R. (2007) Clinical neurophysiology of language: the MEG approach. Clin Neurophysiol.Feb;118(2):237-54.

  N400:

• Kutas, M. and Hillyard, S.A. (1980) Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207(4427), 203-205.

• Kutas, M. and Federmeier, K. D. (2000) Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4: 12, 463-469.

• * Helenius, P, Salmelin, E, et al. 1998. Distinct time courses of word and context comprehension in the left temporal cortex. Brain, 121, 1133-1142.

  M350:

• Embick, D, et al., 2001. A magnetoencephalographic component whose latency reflects lexical frequency. Cognitive Brain Research 10, 345–348

• * Pylkkänen, L. et al. 2002. Neuromagnetic evidence for the timing of lexical activation: an MEG component sensitive to phonotactic probability but not to neighborhood density. Brain and Language 81, 666-678.

• Pylkkänen, L., & Marantz, A. (2003). Tracking the time course of word recognition with MEG. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 187-189.[pdf]
• Pylkkänen, L., Llinas, R. & Murphy, G. (2006). Representation of polysemy: MEG evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 18:1, pp. 1–13. [pdf]

• Beretta A, Fiorentino R, Poeppel D. The effects of homonymy and polysemy on lexical access: an MEG study. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2005 Jun;24(1):57-65. [pdf]

  Aphasia:

• Boatman D, Gordon B, Hart J, Selnes O, Miglioretti D, Lenz F. Transcortical sensory aphasia: revisited and revised. Brain. 2000 Aug;123 ( Pt 8):1634-42.

Early effects:
• * Assadollahi R, Pulvermuller F. Early influences of word length and frequency: a group study using MEG. Neuroreport. 2003 Jun 11;14(8):1183-7. [pdf]

• Hauk O, Pulvermuller F. Effects of word length and frequency on the human event-related potential. Clin Neurophysiol. 2004 May;115(5):1090-103 [pdf]

• Hauk O, Davis MH, Ford M, Pulvermuller F, Marslen-Wilson WD. The time course of visual word recognition as revealed by linear regression analysis of ERP data. Neuroimage. 2006 May 1;30(4):1383-400. [pdf]

• Hauk O, Patterson K, Woollams A, Watling L, Pulvermuller F, Rogers TT.[Q:] When would you prefer a SOSSAGE to a SAUSAGE? [A:] At about 100 msec. ERP correlates of orthographic typicality and lexicality in written word recognition. J Cogn Neurosci. 2006 May;18(5):818-32. [pdf]

  Decomposition:

• * Zweig, E. & Pylkkänen, L. (in press). A visual M170 effect of morphological complexity. Language and Cognitive Processes. [pdf]

• * Fiorentino, R. & Poeppel, D. (in press) Compound Words and Structure in the Lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes[pdf]

• Devlin JT, Jamison HL, Matthews PM, Gonnerman LM. Morphology and the internal structure of words. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Oct 12;101(41):14984-8.

• Davis MH. Units of representation in visual word recognition. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Oct 12;101(41):14687-8.

• Rastle, K., Davis, M., Marslen-Wilson, W., & Tyler, L.K. (2000). Morphological and semantic effects in visual word recognition: A time course study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 507-538.

• Rastle K, Davis MH, New B. The broth in my brother's brothel: morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition. Psychon Bull Rev. 2004 Dec;11(6):1090-8.

• PylkkŠnen, L., Feintuch, S., Hopkins, E., & Marantz, A. (2004). Neural correlates of the effects of morphological family frequency and family size: an MEG study. Cognition, 91, B35-B45.

• Pinker S, Ullman MT. The past and future of the past tense. Trends Cogn Sci. 2002 Nov 1;6(11):456-463.

• * Stockall, L., and Marantz, A. (in press) A single route, full decomposition model of morphological complexity: MEG evidence. The Mental Lexicon 1:1. 2006. 85–123.

• Tyler LK, Stamatakis EA, Jones RW, Bright P, Acres K, Marslen-Wilson WD. Deficits for semantics and the irregular past tense: a causal relationship? J Cogn Neurosci. 2004 Sep;16(7):1159-72.

• Presentatation (Inna): Frisch, S., A. Hahne, and A. D. Friederici (2004). Word category and verb-argument structure information in the dynamics of parsing. Cognition 91, 191-219. [pdf]

• Presentatation (Jim): Cowles, H.W., Robert Kluender, Marta Kutas, and Maria Polinsky. 2007. Violations of information structure: An electrophysiological study of answers to wh-questions. Brain and Language 102, 228-242. [pdf]

• * Angela D. Friederici, Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Volume 6, Issue 2, 1 February 2002, Pages 78-84

• Phillips C, Kazanina N, Abada SH. ERP effects of the processing of syntactic long-distance dependencies. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2005 Mar;22(3):407-28. Epub 2004 Nov 19. [pdf]

• Friederici AD, Gunter TC, Hahne A, Mauth K. The relative timing of syntactic and semantic processes in sentence comprehension. Neuroreport. 2004 Jan 19;15(1):165-9. [pdf]

• Kuperberg GR. Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: challenges to syntax. Brain Res. 2007 May 18;1146:23-49. [pdf]

• Lau E, Stroud C, Plesch S, Phillips C. The role of structural prediction in rapid syntactic analysis. Brain Lang. 2006 Jul;98(1):74-88. pdf

• Dikker, S., Rabagliati, H., & Pylkkänen, L. (submitted). Sensitivity to Syntax in Visual Cortex. [pdf]

• Presentatation (Doug): Maess B, Koelsch S, Gunter TC, Friederici AD. Musical syntax is processed in Broca's area: an MEG study. 1: Nat Neurosci. 2001 May;4(5):540-5. [pdf]

• Presentatation (Amy): Siok, W-T., Tan, L.H., Zhen, J. and Fletcher, P. (2003). Distinct brain regions associated with syllable and phoneme. Human Brain Mapping 18: 201-207 [pdf]

• Edith Kaan and Tamara Y. Swaab, The brain circuitry of syntactic comprehension, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Volume 6, Issue 8, 1 August 2002, Pages 350-356.

• * Stowe, L. A., Haverkort, M., & Zwarts, F (2004). Rethinking the neurological basis of language. Lingua. pdf

• Yosef Grodzinsky and Angela D Friederici, (2006) Neuroimaging of syntax and syntactic processing, Current Opinion in Neurobiology, Volume 16, Issue 2, April 2006, Pages 240-246. [pdf]

• Kan, I. P. & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2004). Selection from perceptual and conceptual representations. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 4, 466-482. [pdf]

• Rizzolatti, G., & Arbib, M. (1998). Language within our grasp. Trends in Neurosciences, 21, 188-194. [pdf]

• Presentatation (Dan): Hagoort, P., Hald, L., Bastiaansen, M., Petersson, K.M. (2004) Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science, 304, 438-41.

• *Pylkkänen, L. & McElree, B. (2007). An MEG Study of Silent Meaning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, , 19, 1905-1921. [pdf]

• Pylkkänen, L. & McElree, B. (2006). The syntax-semantics interface: On-line composition of sentence meaning. In M. Traxler & M.A. Gernsbacher (eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (2nd Ed) (pp. 537-577). NY: Elsevier. [pdf]

• Bookheimer S., Functional MRI of language: new approaches to understanding the cortical organization of semantic processing. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2002;25:151-88. Epub 2002 Mar 19. [pdf]

NOV 28 DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDERS

Williams Syndrome
• Donnai D, Karmiloff-Smith A. Williams syndrome: from genotype through to the cognitive phenotype. Am J Med Genet. 2000 Summer; 97(2):164-71.

• Thompson et al. (2007). Abnormal Cortical Complexity and Thickness Profiles Mapped in Williams Syndrome. The Journal of Neuroscience, April 20, 2005 • 25(16):4146–4158.

• * Clahsen H, Almazan M. 1998. Syntax and morphology in Williams syndrome. Cognition 1998 Sep;68(3):167-98.

• * Zukowski A. Knowledge of constraints on compounding in children and adolescents with Williams syndrome. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2005 Feb;48(1):79-92

• Zukowski, A. (2004). Investigating knowledge of complex syntax: Insights from experimental studies of Williams Syndrome. In M. Rice and S. Warren (Eds.), Developmental Language Disorders: From Phenotypes to Etiologies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

• Special issue of Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics.

  SLI

• Clark MG, Rosen GD, Tallal P, Fitch RH. 2000. Impaired processing of complex auditory stimuli in rats with induced cerebrocortical microgyria: An animal model of developmental language disabilities. J Cogn Neurosci 2000 Sep;12(5):828-39.

• * Rice ML, Wexler K, Redmond SM. 1999. Grammaticality judgements of an extended optional infinitive grammar: evidence from English-speaking children with specific language impairment. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1999 Aug;42(4):943-61.

• van der Lely HK. Domain-specific cognitive systems: insight from Grammatical-SLI. Trends Cogn Sci. 2005 Feb;9(2):53-9. Review.

DEC 5 FINAL PRESENTATIONS cont., followed by LabBeer!