Exploring the Neural Mechanisms Supporting Structured Sequence Processing and Language Using Event-Related Potentials: Some Preliminary Findings

Structured sequence processing (SSP) refers to the neurocognitive mechanisms used to learn sequential patterns in the environment. SSP ability seems to be important for language (Conway, Bauernschmidt, Huang, & Pisoni, 2010); however, there are few neural studies showing an empirical connection between SSP and language. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between SSP and language processing by comparing the underlying neural components elicited during each type of task. Healthy adult subjects completed a visual, non-linguistic SSP task incorporating an artificial grammar and a visual morphosyntactic language task. Both tasks were designed to cause violations in expectations of items occurring in a series. Event-related potentials (ERPs) were used to examine the underlying neural mechanisms associated with these expectancy violations. The results indicated the P3a component elicited by the SSP task and the P600 component elicited by the language task shared similarities in their topographic distribution. These preliminary analyses suggest that the P3a and P600 may reflect processes involving detection of sequential violations in non-language and language domains, which is consistent with the idea that language processing relies on general-purpose SSP mechanisms.

[1]  Kara D. Federmeier Thinking ahead: the role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. , 2007, Psychophysiology.

[2]  Axel Mecklinger,et al.  Error and Deviance Processing in Implicit and Explicit Sequence Learning , 2008, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[3]  M. Kutas,et al.  Expect the Unexpected: Event-related Brain Response to Morphosyntactic Violations , 1998 .

[4]  Benjamin Martin Bly,et al.  Event-related potential markers of expectation violation in an artificial grammar learning task , 2007, Neuroreport.

[5]  Christopher M. Conway,et al.  Implicit statistical learning in language processing: Word predictability is the key , 2010, Cognition.

[6]  J. Saffran Statistical Language Learning , 2003 .

[7]  A. Goldstein,et al.  Electrophysiological correlates of speech perception mechanisms and individual differences in second language attainment. , 2011, Psychophysiology.

[8]  J. Polich,et al.  P3a and P3b from typical auditory and visual stimuli , 1999, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[9]  E. Newport,et al.  Computation of Conditional Probability Statistics by 8-Month-Old Infants , 1998 .

[10]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Similar neural correlates for language and sequential learning: Evidence from event-related brain potentials , 2012, Language and cognitive processes.

[11]  E. Courchesne,et al.  Stimulus novelty, task relevance and the visual evoked potential in man. , 1975, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[12]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Sequential learning in non-human primates , 2001, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[13]  M. Ullman Contributions of memory circuits to language: the declarative/procedural model , 2004, Cognition.

[14]  Axel Cleeremans,et al.  Implicit learning: news from the front , 1998, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[15]  P. Hagoort,et al.  A superficial resemblance does not necessarily mean you are part of the family : Counterarguments to Coulson, King and Kutas (1998) in the P600/SPS-P300 debate , 1999 .

[16]  R. Sun,et al.  The interaction of the explicit and the implicit in skill learning: a dual-process approach. , 2005, Psychological review.

[17]  A. Reber Implicit learning of artificial grammars , 1967 .

[18]  M. Bar The proactive brain: using analogies and associations to generate predictions , 2007, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[19]  Aniruddh D. Patel,et al.  Processing Syntactic Relations in Language and Music: An Event-Related Potential Study , 1998, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[20]  Peter Ford Dominey,et al.  COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE: Dissociable ERP profiles for processing rules vs instances in a cognitive sequencing task , 2000 .