Scenario (c), by contrast, is predicted by the P600-as-P3 perspective, while models PD0332991 in vivo assigning the P600 a specific role in structural/combinatorial processing might require post hoc amendments to explain this scenario. The present study aimed to test these hypotheses. Please note that, in line with recent
calls for dissociating exploratory from confirmatory research (Wagenmakers, Wetzels, Borsboom, van der Maas, & Kievit, 2012), we pre-registered the experiment (German Clinical Trial Registry, ID: DRKS00004596), making our predictions and methods publicly available before data collection was initiated. Twenty monolingually raised native speakers of German (three men; mean age 24.75, range 21–42) participated in the experiment after giving written informed consent. Participants were right-handed, had good auditory acuity and normal or corrected-to-normal vision. All were students of the University of Mainz, receiving course credit for their participation. Experimental stimuli were constructed by a strict scheme, resulting in sentences of the structure shown in example (1). Each sentence consisted of a hyperonym and two potential hyponyms, always presented in that order. Only Metformin concentration these three nouns and their determiners
were varied across sentences. Control sentences (1a), of which subjects heard 150, contained a hyperonym and two hyponyms. Syntactic violation sentences (1b), of which subjects heard 110, consisted of a hyperonym and two of its hyponyms, one of which (balanced across 1st and 2nd positions) was preceded by an article not agreeing in grammatical gender with the hyponym. Agreement violations, including gender mismatches,
have previously been found to elicit P600 effects Thalidomide (Hagoort and Brown, 1999 and Molinaro et al., 2011). Semantic violations (1c), of which subjects heard 40, consisted of a hyperonym, one of its hyponyms, and one noun phrase that had been exchanged with a noun phrase from another sentence. Semantic errors of this sort typically induce N400 effects (Kutas & Federmeier, 2011), sometimes followed by an additional P600 (e.g. Roehm et al., 2007 and Sanford et al., 2011). We used a higher number of sentences in the two conditions of primary interest – the control condition and the syntactic violation condition, where we expected to observe a P600 – than in typical studies of sentence processing in order to enable us to conduct single trial analyses. Because we were unable to produce 300 different hyponyms, many hyponyms were shared across sets. However, we ensured that no sentences were repeated verbatim, and neither condition (structural violation, semantic violation or correct) nor violation time point were predictable before the actual violation point/critical point (1st or 2nd hyponym for violation sentences, and 2nd hyponym for control sentences).