N400 amplitudes reflect change in a probabilistic representation of meaning: Evidence from a connectionist model

The N400 component of the event-related brain potential is widely used in research on language and semantic memory, but the cognitive functions underlying N400 amplitudes are still unclear and actively debated. Recent simulations with a neural network model of word meaning suggest that N400 amplitudes might reflect implicit semantic prediction error. Here, we extend these simulations to sentence comprehension, using a neural network model of sentence processing to simulate a number of N400 effects obtained in empirical research. In the model, sequentially incoming words update a representation capturing probabilities of elements of sentence meaning, not only reflecting the constituents presented so far, but also the model’s best guess at all features of the sentence meaning based on the statistical regularities in the model’s environment internalized in its connection weights. Simulating influences of semantic congruity, cloze probability, a word’s position in the sentence, reversal anomalies, semantic and associative priming, categorically related incongruities, lexical frequency, repetition, and interactions between repetition and semantic congruity, we found that the update of the predictive representation of sentence meaning consistently patterned with N400 amplitudes. These results are in line with the idea that N400 amplitudes reflect semantic surprise, defined as the change in the probability distribution over semantic features in an integrated representation of meaning occasioned by the arrival of each successive constituent of a sentence.

[1]  Jeffrey Pennington,et al.  GloVe: Global Vectors for Word Representation , 2014, EMNLP.

[2]  D. Plaut,et al.  A neurally plausible Parallel Distributed Processing model of Event-Related Potential word reading data , 2012, Brain and Language.

[3]  Kara D. Federmeier,et al.  A Rose by Any Other Name: Long-Term Memory Structure and Sentence Processing , 1999 .

[4]  Harm Brouwer,et al.  The electrophysiology of language comprehension A neurocomputational model , 2010 .

[5]  Jeffrey L. Elman,et al.  Finding Structure in Time , 1990, Cogn. Sci..

[6]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Précis of Semantic Cognition: A Parallel Distributed Processing Approach , 2008, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[7]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Sentence comprehension: A parallel distributed processing approach , 1989, Language and Cognitive Processes.

[8]  Yves Chauvin,et al.  Backpropagation: the basic theory , 1995 .

[9]  R. Levy Expectation-based syntactic comprehension , 2008, Cognition.

[10]  Pierre Baldi,et al.  Bayesian surprise attracts human attention , 2005, Vision Research.

[11]  M. Rugg,et al.  Modulation of event-related potentials by word repetition: the effects of inter-item lag. , 1989, Psychophysiology.

[12]  Marshall R. Mayberry,et al.  Situated sentence processing: The coordinated interplay account and a neurobehavioral model , 2010, Brain and Language.

[13]  Karl G. D. Bailey,et al.  Good-Enough Representations in Language Comprehension , 2002 .

[14]  C. C. Wood,et al.  Event-related potentials, lexical decision and semantic priming. , 1985, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[15]  M. Kutas,et al.  An Electrophysiological Probe of Incidental Semantic Association , 1989, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[16]  D. Caplan,et al.  Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences. , 2003, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[17]  M. Kutas,et al.  Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association , 1984, Nature.

[18]  Geoffrey E. Hinton Connectionist Learning Procedures , 1989, Artif. Intell..

[19]  M. Kutas,et al.  Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. , 1980, Science.

[20]  S. Frank,et al.  The ERP response to the amount of information conveyed by words in sentences , 2015, Brain and Language.

[21]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  A theory of cortical responses , 2005, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[22]  M. Kutas,et al.  Interactions between sentence context and word frequencyinevent-related brainpotentials , 1990, Memory & cognition.

[23]  M. Kutas,et al.  An Event-Related Potential (ERP) Analysis of Semantic Congruity and Repetition Effects in Sentences , 1992, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[24]  Dorothee J. Chwilla,et al.  When Heuristics Clash with Parsing Routines: ERP Evidence for Conflict Monitoring in Sentence Perception , 2006, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[25]  Kara D. Federmeier,et al.  Thirty years and counting: finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). , 2011, Annual review of psychology.