Abstract
Behavioral studies have consistently reported striking differences in the impact of sentence-level information on the processing of words presented in the right (RVF) versus the left (LVF) visual field, with context effects apparent only for RVF items. The consistent lack of such effects in the LVF has been taken to mean that right hemisphere language comprehension is largely insensitive to messagelevel meaning. We used the functional specificity afforded by event-related potential measures to assess this claim. Target words completing strongly and weakly constraining sentence contexts, in which constraint arose at the sentence level rather than from lexical associations, were presented laterally in the LVF or RVF. Increased constraint significantly reduced N400 amplitudes with presentation in both VFs, with no differences in the timing or amplitude of these effects. These results are inconsistent with the view that the VF asymmetries found in behavioral measures reflect differential hemispheric capacities at the level of semantic analysis and integration, although VF-based differences on earlier components (P2) suggest asymmetries in the impact of sentential context on perceptual aspects of word processing in the two hemispheres.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Banich, M. T. (2002). The divided visual field technique in laterality and interhemispheric integration. In K. Hugdahl (Ed.),Experimental methods in neuropsychology. Boston: Kluwer.
Banich, M. T. (2003). Interaction between the hemispheres and its implications for the processing capacity of the brain. In R. Davidson and K. Hugdahl (Eds.),Brain asymmetry (2nd ed., pp. 261–302). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Baynes, K., &Eliassen, J. C. (1998). The visual lexicon: Its access and organization in commissurotomy patients. In M. Beeman & C. Chiarello (Eds.),Right hemisphere language comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience (pp. 79–104). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Beeman, M. (1993). Semantic processing in the right hemisphere may contribute to drawing inferences from discourse.Brain & Language,44, 80–120.
Beeman, M. (1998). Coarse semantic coding and discourse comprehension. In M. Beeman & C. Chiarello (Eds.),Right hemisphere language comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience (pp. 255–284). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Beeman, M., Friedman, R. B., Grafman, J., &Perez, E. (1994). Summation priming and coarse semantic coding in the right hemisphere.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,6, 26–45.
Bentin, S., McCarthy, G., &Wood, C. C. (1985). Event-related potentials associated with semantic priming.Electroencephalography & Clinical Neurophysiology,60, 343–355.
Berardi, N., &Fiorentini, A. (1997). Interhemispheric transfer of spatial and temporal frequency information. In S. Christman (Ed.),Cerebral asymmetries in sensory and perceptual processing (pp. 55–79). New York: Elsevier.
Bloom, P. A., &Fischler, I. (1980). Completion norms for 329 sentence contexts.Memory & Cognition,8, 631–642.
Bottini, G., Corcoran, R., Sterzi, R., Paulesu, E. S., Schenone, P., Scarpa, P., Frackowiak, R. S. J., &Frith, C. D. (1994). The role of the right hemisphere in the interpretation of figurative aspects of language: A positron emission tomography activation study.Brain,117, 1241–1253.
Brownell, H. H., Michel, D., Powelson, J., &Gardner, H. (1983). Surprise but not coherence: Sensitivity to verbal humor in righthemisphere patients.Brain & Language,18, 20–27.
Brownell, H. H., Potter, H. H., Bihrle, A. M., &Gardner, H. (1986). Inference deficits in right brain-damaged patients.Brain & Language,27, 310–321.
Bub, D. N., &Arguin, M. (1995). Visual word activation in pure alexia.Brain & Language,49, 77–103.
Burgess, C., &Simpson, G. B. (1988). Cerebral hemispheric mechanisms in the retrieval of ambiguous word meanings.Brain & Language,33, 86–103.
Chiarello, C. (2003). Parallel systems for processing language: Hemispheric complementarity in the normal brain. In M. T. Banich & M. Mack (Eds.),Mind, brain, and language: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 229–247). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chiarello, C., Burgess, C., Richards, L., &Pollock, A. (1990). Semantic and associative priming in the cerebral hemispheres: Some words do, some words don’t ... sometimes, some places.Brain & Language,38, 75–104.
Chiarello, C., Liu, S., &Faust, M. (2001). Bihemispheric sensitivity to sentence anomaly.Neuropsychologia,39, 1451–1463.
Coney, J., &MacDonald, S. (1988). The effect of retention interval upon hemispheric processes in recognition memory.Neuropsychologia,26, 287–295.
Dee, H. L., &Fontenot, D. J. (1973). Cerebral dominance and lateral differences in perception and memory.Neuropsychologia,11, 1167–1173.
Delis, D. C., Wapner, W., Gardner, H., &Moses, J. A. (1983). The contribution of the right hemisphere to the organization of paragraphs.Cortex,19, 43–50.
Faust, M. (1998). Obtaining evidence of language comprehension from sentence priming. In M. Beeman & C. Chiarello (Eds.),Right hemisphere language comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience (pp. 161–185). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Faust, M., Babkoff, H., &Kravetz, S. (1995). Linguistic processes in the two cerebral hemispheres: Implications for modularity vs. interactionism.Journal of Clinical & Experimental Neuropsychology,17, 171–192.
Faust, M., Bar-Lev, A., &Chiarello, C. (2003). Sentence priming effects in the two cerebral hemispheres: Influences of lexical relatedness, word order, and sentence anomaly.Neuropsychologia,41, 480–492.
Faust, M., &Kravetz, S. (1998). Levels of sentence constraint and lexical decision in the two hemispheres.Brain & Language,62, 149–162.
Faust, M., Kravetz, S., &Babkoff, H. (1993). Hemisphericity and top-down processing of language.Brain & Language,44, 1–18.
Federmeier, K. D., &Kutas, M. (1999a). Right words and left words: Electrophysiological evidence for hemispheric differences in meaning processing.Cognitive Brain Research,8, 373–392.
Federmeier, K. D., &Kutas, M. (1999b). A rose by any other name: Long-term memory structure and sentence processing.Journal of Memory & Language,41, 469–495.
Federmeier, K. D., &Kutas, M. (2002). Picture the difference: Electrophysiological investigations of picture processing in the cerebral hemispheres.Neuropsychologia,40, 730–747.
Francis, W. N., &Kučera, H. (1982).Frequency analysis of English Usage. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gardner, H., Brownell, H. H., Wapner, W., &Michelow, D. (1983). Missing the point? The role of the right hemisphere in the processing of complex linguistic materials. In E. Perecman (Ed.),Cognitive processing in the right hemisphere (pp. 169–191). New York: Academic Press.
Gough, P. B., Alford, J. A., Jr., &Holley-Wilcox, P. (1981). Words and contexts. In O. J. L. Tzeng & H. Singer (Eds.),Perception of print: Reading research in experimental psychology (pp. 85–102). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Griffin, Z. M., &Bock, K. (1998). Constraint, word frequency, and the relationship between lexical processing levels in spoken word production.Journal of Memory & Language,38, 313–338.
Hillyard, S. A., &Münte, T. F. (1984). Selective attention to color and location: An analysis with event-related brain potentials.Perception & Psychophysics,36, 185–198.
Hoptman, M. J., &Davidson, R. J. (1994). How and why do the two cerebral hemispheres interact?Psychological Bulletin,116, 195–219.
Joanette, Y., Goulet, P., &Hannequin, D. (1990).Right hemisphere and verbal communication. New York: Springer.
Kiss, G. R., Armstrong, C., Milroy, R., &Piper, J. (1973). An associative thesaurus of English and its computer analysis. In A. J. Aitkin, R. W. Bailey, & N. Hamilton-Smith (Eds.),The computer and literary Studies (pp. 153–165). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Kutas, M., &Federmeier, K. D. (2001). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,4, 463–470.
Kutas, M., &Hillyard, S. A. (1980a). Event-related brain potentials to semantically inappropriate and surprisingly large words.Biological Psychology,11, 99–116.
Kutas, M., &Hillyard, S. A. (1980b). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity.Science,207, 203–205.
Kutas, M., &Hillyard, S. A. (1983). Event-related brain potentials to grammatical errors and semantic anomalies.Memory & Cognition,11, 539–550.
Kutas, M., &Hillyard, S. A. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association.Nature,307, 161–163.
Kutas, M., Lindamood, T. E., &Hillyard, S. A. (1984). Word expectancy and event-related brain potentials during sentence processing. In S. Kornblum & J. Requin (Eds.),Preparatory states and processes (pp. 217–237). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Luck, S. J., &Hillyard, S. A. (1994). Electrophysiological correlates of feature analysis during visual search.Psychophysiology,31, 291–308.
Martin, R. C. (2003). Language processing: Functional organization and neuroanatomical basis.Annual Review of Psychology,54, 55–89.
Nagy, M. E., &Rugg, M. D. (1989). Modulation of event-related potentials by word repetition: The effects of inter-item lag.Psychophysiology,26, 431–436.
Neville, H. J., Kutas, M., &Schmidt, A. (1982). Event-related potential studies of cerebral specialization during reading: I. Studies of normal adults.Brain & Language,16, 300–315.
Ni, W., Constable, R. T., Mencl, W. E., Pugh, K. R., Fulbright, R. K., Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Gore, J. C., &Shankweiler, D. (2000). An event-related neuroimaging study distinguishing form and content in sentence processing.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,12, 120–133.
Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory.Neuropsychologia,9, 97–113.
Ratcliff, R., &McKoon, G. (1988). A retrieval theory of priming in memory.Psychological Review,95, 385–408.
Rayner, K., &Well, A. D. (1996). Effects of contextual constraint on eye movements in reading: A further examination.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,3, 504–509.
Robertson, D. A., Gernsbacher, M. A., Guidotti, S. J., Robertson, R. R. W., Irwin, W., Mock, B. J., &Campana, M. E. (2000). Functional neuroanatomy of the cognitive process of mapping during discourse comprehension.Psychological Science,11, 255–260.
Rugg, M. D., Milner, A. D., &Lines, C. R. (1985). Visual evoked potentials to lateralised stimuli in two cases of callosal agenesis.Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, & Psychiatry,48, 367–373.
Sanocki, T., &Oden, G. C. (1984). Contextual validity and the effects of low-constraint sentence contexts on lexical decisions.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,36A, 145–156.
Schwanenflugel, P. J., &Shoben, E. J. (1985). The influence of sentence constraint on the scope of facilitation for upcoming words.Journal of Memory & Language,24, 232–252.
St. George, M., Kutas, M., Martinez, A., &Sereno, M. I. (1999). Semantic integration in reading: Engagement of the right hemisphere during discourse processing.Brain,122, 1317–1325.
Taylor, W. L. (1953). “Cloze procedure”: A new tool for measuring readability.Journalism Quarterly,30, 415–433.
Titone, D. (1998). Hemispheric differences in context sensitivity during lexical ambiguity resolution.Brain & Language,65, 361–394.
Van Petten, C. (1993). A comparison of lexical and sentence-level context effects in event-related potentials.Language & Cognitive Processes,8, 485–531.
Van Petten, C., &Kutas, M. (1990). Interactions between sentence context and word frequency in event-related brain potentials.Memory & Cognition,18, 380–393.
Wapner, W., Hamby, S., &Gardner, H. (1981). The role of the right hemisphere in the apprehension of complex linguistic materials.Brain & Language,14, 15–33.
Weylman, S. T., Brownell, H. H., Roman, M., &Gardner, H. (1989). Appreciation of indirect requests by left- and right-brain-damaged patients: The effects of verbal context and conventionality of wording.Brain & Language,36, 580–591.
Zaidel, E. (1990). Language functions in the two hemispheres following complete cerebral commissurotomy and hemispherectomy. In F. Boller & J. Grafman (Series Eds.) & R.D. Nebes & S. Corkin (Vol. Eds.),Handbook of neuropsychology (Vol. 4, pp. 115–150). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The work reported here was supported by a German National Scholarship Foundation award to H.M. and by National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Grant HD22614 and National Institute on Aging Grant AG08313 to M.K.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Federmeier, K.D., Mai, H. & Kutas, M. Both sides get the point: Hemispheric sensitivities to sentential constraint. Memory & Cognition 33, 871–886 (2005). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193082
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193082