Context- and Prosody-Driven ERP Markers for Dialog Focus Perception in Children

The development of language proficiency extends late into childhood and includes not only producing or comprehending sounds, words and sentences, but likewise larger utterances spanning beyond sentence borders like dialogs. Dialogs consist of information units whose value constantly varies within a verbal exchange. While information is focused when introduced for the first time or corrected in order to alter the knowledge state of communication partners, the same information turns into shared knowledge during the further course of a verbal exchange. In many languages, prosodic means are used by speakers to highlight the informational value of information foci. Our study investigated the developmental pattern of event-related potentials (ERPs) in three age groups (12, 8 and 5 years) when perceiving two information focus types (news and corrections) embedded in short question–answer dialogs. The information foci contained in the answer sentences were either adequately marked by prosodic means or not. In so doing, we questioned to what extent children depend on prosodic means to recognize information foci or whether contextual means as provided by dialog questions are sufficient to guide focus processing.Only 12-year-olds yield prosody-independent ERPs when encountering new and corrective information foci, resembling previous findings in adults. Focus processing in the 8-year-olds relied upon prosodic highlighting, and differing ERP responses as a function of focus type were observed. In the 5-year-olds, merely prosody-driven ERP responses were apparent, but no distinctive ERP indicating information focus recognition. Our findings reveal substantial alterations in information focus perception throughout childhood that are likely related to long-lasting maturational changes during brain development.

[1]  A. Friederici,et al.  Late interaction of syntactic and prosodic processes in sentence comprehension as revealed by ERPs. , 2005, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[2]  Yong Lu,et al.  How and when prosodic boundaries influence syntactic parsing under different discourse contexts: An ERP study , 2010, Biological Psychology.

[3]  Bill Wells,et al.  Intonation development from five to thirteen , 2004, Journal of Child Language.

[4]  D. Guthrie,et al.  Significance testing of difference potentials. , 1991, Psychophysiology.

[5]  Ulrike Toepel,et al.  Catching the news: Processing strategies in listening to dialogs as measured by ERPs , 2007, Behavioral and Brain Functions.

[6]  Claudia Männel,et al.  Pauses and Intonational Phrasing: ERP Studies in 5-month-old German Infants and Adults , 2009, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[7]  A. Jongman,et al.  A comparison of semantic and syntactic event related potentials generated by children and adults , 2006, Brain and Language.

[8]  Cyril Perret,et al.  Comparing Electrophysiological Correlates of Word Production in Immediate and Delayed Naming Through the Analysis of Word Age of Acquisition Effects , 2011, Brain Topography.

[9]  A. Friederici,et al.  Lateralization of auditory language functions: A dynamic dual pathway model , 2004, Brain and Language.

[10]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Processing focus structure and implicit prosody during reading: Differential ERP effects , 2007, Cognition.

[11]  S. Petersen,et al.  Individual Brain Maturity: From Electrophysiology to fMRI—Response , 2011, Brain Topography.

[12]  Herbert Schriefers,et al.  Pitch accents in context: How listeners process accentuation in referential communication , 2011, Neuropsychologia.

[13]  Ulrike Toepel,et al.  Inadequate and infrequent are not alike: ERPs to deviant prosodic patterns in spoken sentence comprehension , 2008, Brain and Language.

[14]  Wallace L. Chafe,et al.  Language and Consciousness. , 1974 .

[15]  Aoju Chen Is there really an asymmetry in the acquisition of the focus-to-accentuation mapping? , 2010 .

[16]  P. Hagoort The fractionation of spoken language understanding by measuring electrical and magnetic brain signals , 2008, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[17]  Angela D Friederici,et al.  Prosodic processing at the sentence level in infants , 2006, Neuroreport.

[18]  Caroline Féry,et al.  Pitch accent scaling on given, new and focused constituents in German , 2008, J. Phonetics.

[19]  Asaid Khateb,et al.  On the Origin of the N400 Effects: An ERP Waveform and Source Localization Analysis in Three Matching Tasks , 2010, Brain Topography.

[20]  R. C. Oldfield The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

[21]  Magnus Lindgren,et al.  Brain Talk : discourse with and in the brain : papers from the first Birgit Rausing Language Program Conference in Linguistics, Lund, June 2008 , 2009 .

[22]  Candace L. Sidner,et al.  Attention, Intentions, and the Structure of Discourse , 1986, CL.

[23]  Matthias Schlesewsky,et al.  Contextual information modulates initial processes of syntactic integration: the role of inter- versus intrasentential predictions. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[24]  A. Friederici,et al.  Syntactic event-related potential components in 24-month-olds’ sentence comprehension , 2006, Neuroreport.

[25]  Peter Hagoort,et al.  Beyond the sentence given , 2007, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[26]  Peter Hagoort,et al.  Pitch accent and lexical tone processing in Chinese discourse comprehension: An ERP study , 2008, Brain Research.

[27]  Ann Cutler,et al.  Prosody in the Comprehension of Spoken Language: A Literature Review , 1997, Language and speech.

[28]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  It's Early: Event-related Potential Evidence for Initial Interaction of Syntax and Prosody in Speech Comprehension , 2006, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[29]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Brain Signatures of Syntactic and Semantic Processes during Children's Language Development , 2004, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[30]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Brain potentials indicate immediate use of prosodic cues in natural speech processing , 1999, Nature Neuroscience.

[31]  T. Paus Mapping brain maturation and cognitive development during adolescence , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[32]  Dietrich Lehmann,et al.  Mapping event-related brain potential microstates to sentence endings , 2005, Brain Topography.

[33]  M. Halliday NOTES ON TRANSITIVITY AND THEME IN ENGLISH. PART 2 , 1967 .

[34]  T. Koenig,et al.  Individual Brain Maturity: From Electrophysiology to fMRI , 2011, Brain Topography.

[35]  M. Ernst,et al.  The adolescent brain: Insights from functional neuroimaging research , 2008, Developmental neurobiology.

[36]  A. Friederici Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[37]  C. Clifton,et al.  Focus, Accent, and Argument Structure: Effects on Language Comprehension , 1995, Language and speech.

[38]  Anne Lacheret,et al.  On-line Processing of Pop-Out Words in Spoken French Dialogues , 2005, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[39]  H. Neville,et al.  Visual and auditory sentence processing: A developmental analysis using event‐related brain potentials , 1992 .

[40]  Denis Brunet,et al.  Topographic ERP Analyses: A Step-by-Step Tutorial Review , 2008, Brain Topography.

[41]  Herbert Schriefers,et al.  The Role of Prosodic Breaks and Pitch Accents in Grouping Words during On-line Sentence Processing , 2011, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[42]  Marcel Bastiaansen,et al.  The influence of information structure on the depth of semantic processing: How focus and pitch accent determine the size of the N400 effect , 2011, Neuropsychologia.

[43]  M. Dapretto,et al.  A functional magnetic resonance imaging study of discourse coherence in typically developing children , 2005, Neuroreport.

[44]  Martina Zellin,et al.  In the eye of the listener: pupil dilation elucidates discourse processing. , 2011, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.