No evidence from MVPA for different processes underlying the N300 and N400 incongruity effects in object-scene processing
暂无分享,去创建一个
Dejan Draschkow | Christian J. Fiebach | Jona Sassenhagen | Edvard Heikel | M. Võ | C. Fiebach | Jona Sassenhagen | Edvard Heikel | Dejan Draschkow | Melissa L. -H. Võ
[1] Haline E. Schendan,et al. Object knowledge during entry-level categorization is activated and modified by implicit memory after 200 ms , 2009, NeuroImage.
[2] M. Kutas,et al. Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. , 1980, Science.
[3] Tim H. W. Cornelissen,et al. Stuck on semantics: Processing of irrelevant object-scene inconsistencies modulates ongoing gaze behavior , 2017, Attention, perception & psychophysics.
[4] R. Oostenveld,et al. Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG-data , 2007, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.
[5] Stephen M. Smith,et al. Threshold-free cluster enhancement: Addressing problems of smoothing, threshold dependence and localisation in cluster inference , 2009, NeuroImage.
[6] G. McCarthy,et al. Language-Related ERPs: Scalp Distributions and Modulation by Word Type and Semantic Priming , 1994, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.
[7] T. Sejnowski,et al. Removing electroencephalographic artifacts by blind source separation. , 2000, Psychophysiology.
[8] M. Bar,et al. Prediction, context, and competition in visual recognition , 2015, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.
[9] M. Kutas,et al. The Search for Common Sense: An Electrophysiological Study of the Comprehension of Words and Pictures in Reading , 1996, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.
[10] Liad Mudrik,et al. Are incongruent objects harder to identify? The functional significance of the N300 component , 2018, Neuropsychologia.
[11] Niko A. Busch,et al. A Pool of Pairs of Related Objects (POPORO) for Investigating Visual Semantic Integration: Behavioral and Electrophysiological Validation , 2012, Brain Topography.
[12] I. Biederman,et al. Scene perception: Detecting and judging objects undergoing relational violations , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.
[13] M. Castelhano,et al. Scene context influences without scene gist: Eye movements guided by spatial associations in visual search , 2011, Psychonomic bulletin & review.
[14] Moshe Bar,et al. The proactive brain: memory for predictions , 2009, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.
[15] Tim Lauer,et al. The role of scene summary statistics in object recognition , 2018, Scientific Reports.
[16] J. Henderson,et al. Object identification is isolated from scene semantic constraint: evidence from object type and token discrimination. , 1999, Acta psychologica.
[17] Jan Theeuwes,et al. OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences , 2011, Behavior Research Methods.
[18] Martin Luessi,et al. MEG and EEG data analysis with MNE-Python , 2013, Front. Neuroinform..
[19] Alexandre Gramfort,et al. Autoreject: Automated artifact rejection for MEG and EEG data , 2016, NeuroImage.
[20] N. Mackworth,et al. Cognitive determinants of fixation location during picture viewing. , 1978, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.
[21] M. Kutas,et al. Neurophysiological evidence for two processing times for visual object identification , 2002, Neuropsychologia.
[22] J. Henderson,et al. The effects of semantic consistency on eye movements during complex scene viewing , 1999 .
[23] C. Fiebach,et al. Time-generalized multivariate analysis of EEG responses reveals a cascading architecture of semantic mismatch processing , 2018, Brain and Language.
[24] M. Kutas,et al. An electrophysiological study of scene effects on object identification. , 2003, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.
[25] Jodi L. Davenport,et al. Scene Consistency in Object and Background Perception , 2004, Psychological science.
[26] Marius V. Peelen,et al. Interaction between Scene and Object Processing Revealed by Human fMRI and MEG Decoding , 2017, The Journal of Neuroscience.
[27] S. Dehaene,et al. Characterizing the dynamics of mental representations: the temporal generalization method , 2014, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
[28] M. Bar. Visual objects in context , 2004, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.
[29] R. Verleger. On the utility of P3 latency as an index of mental chronometry. , 1997, Psychophysiology.
[30] 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.
[31] L. Deouell,et al. Synchronous contextual irregularities affect early scene processing: Replication and extension , 2014, Neuropsychologia.
[32] Bo Ekman. In Search of Common Sense , 2007 .
[33] John M Henderson,et al. The time course of initial scene processing for eye movement guidance in natural scene search. , 2010, Journal of vision.
[34] Marta Kutas,et al. The intractability of scaling scalp distributions to infer neuroelectric sources. , 2002, Psychophysiology.
[35] Kara D. Federmeier,et al. Meaning and modality: influences of context, semantic memory organization, and perceptual predictability on picture processing. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.
[36] Phillip J. Holcomb,et al. Two Neurocognitive Mechanisms of Semantic Integration during the Comprehension of Visual Real-world Events , 2008, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.
[37] L. Deouell,et al. ERP evidence for context congruity effects during simultaneous object–scene processing , 2010, Neuropsychologia.
[38] M. Bar. The proactive brain: using analogies and associations to generate predictions , 2007, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
[39] Stefan Haufe,et al. On the interpretation of weight vectors of linear models in multivariate neuroimaging , 2014, NeuroImage.
[40] Tom Eichele,et al. Semi-automatic identification of independent components representing EEG artifact , 2009, Clinical Neurophysiology.
[41] J. Wolfe,et al. Differential Electrophysiological Signatures of Semantic and Syntactic Scene Processing , 2013, Psychological science.
[42] M. Schlesewsky,et al. The P600-as-P3 hypothesis revisited: Single-trial analyses reveal that the late EEG positivity following linguistically deviant material is reaction time aligned , 2014, Brain and Language.
[43] Katherine J. Midgley,et al. Phonological and semantic priming in American Sign Language: N300 and N400 effects , 2018, Language, cognition and neuroscience.
[44] Roel M. Willems,et al. Seeing and Hearing Meaning: ERP and fMRI Evidence of Word versus Picture Integration into a Sentence Context , 2008, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.
[45] R. Gopal,et al. Electrophysiological investigation , 2018, Medicine.
[46] J. Wolfe,et al. The role of memory for visual search in scenes , 2015, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.
[47] et al.,et al. Jupyter Notebooks - a publishing format for reproducible computational workflows , 2016, ELPUB.
[48] George L. Malcolm,et al. ERP correlates of spatially incongruent object identification during scene viewing: Contextual expectancy versus simultaneous processing , 2012, Neuropsychologia.
[49] Irving Biederman,et al. On the Semantics of a Glance at a Scene , 2017 .
[50] Blake W. Johnson,et al. Comparison of the N300 and N400 ERPs to picture stimuli in congruent and incongruent contexts , 2002, Clinical Neurophysiology.
[51] Gaël Varoquaux,et al. Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python , 2011, J. Mach. Learn. Res..
[52] Dejan Draschkow,et al. Scene grammar shapes the way we interact with objects, strengthens memories, and speeds search , 2017, Scientific Reports.
[53] P. Holcomb,et al. An electrophysiological investigation of semantic priming with pictures of real objects. , 1999, Psychophysiology.