How the brain solves the binding problem for language: a neurocomputational model of syntactic processing.

By Peter Hagoort. NeuroImage, 2003

347 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Developmental and Educational Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3506c78fe50be53c0afc6fe929117e82b932fcad

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: evidence from ERPs and reading times. (2005, neutral): “We also know that the N400 is sensitive to discourse-dependent semantic anomalies (Federmeier & Kutas, 1999a, 1999b; St. George, Mannes, & Hoffman , 1994; Van Berkum, Hagoort, & Brown, 1999; Van Berkum, Zwitserlood, Brown, & Hagoort, 2003).”
An ERP study of the processing of subject and object relative clauses in Japanese (2008, methodology): “Recently, several neurocognitive models have been proposed linking language comprehension subprocesses with particular ERP components (Bornkessel & Schlesewsky, 2006; Friederici, 2002; Gouvea et al., 2007; Hagoort, 2003, 2005; Ullman, 2001).”
An alternative perspective on "semantic P600" effects in language comprehension. (2008, positive): “As should be apparent from the preceding discussion, the eADM differs from other existing neurocognitive models of language comprehension (Friederici 2002; Friederici and Alter 2004; Hagoort 2003, 2005; Ullman 2001, 2004) in that it reduces the interpretive burden that is placed on the syntax.”
MUC (Memory, Unification, Control) and beyond (2013, background): “These regions store information including phonological word forms, morphological information, and the syntactic templates associated with noun, verbs, adjectives (for details, see Hagoort, 2003, 2005, 2009a,b).”
Interpreting and improving natural-language processing (in machines) with natural language-processing (in the brain) (2019, background): “There doesn’t yet exist a unique theory of how the brain processes language that researchers agree upon (Hickok and Poeppel, 2007; Friederici, 2011; Hagoort, 2003).”
The linguistic processes underlying the P600 (2010, methodology): “…parsing processes affect the P600 may be related to a number of different models of sentence parsing and sentence comprehension difficulty (e.g., Gibson, 1998; Lewis et al., 2006; Vosse & Kempen, 2000) and with neurochronometric models of sentence processing (e.g., Friederici, 2002; Hagoort, 2003).”
Neural reflections of meaning in gesture, language, and action (2009, background): “, & Hagoort, P. (2007).”
The extended argument dependency model: a neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. (2006, background): “A third proposal regarding the neural basis of syntactic processing was recently put forward by Hagoort (2003, 2005).”
Simultaneously Uncovering the Patterns of Brain Regions Involved in Different Story Reading Subprocesses (2014, background): “Different models of meaning integration have also been proposed that disagree on the order in which semantic and syntactic information is accessed as a word is encountered, as well as on the order of integration of this information [10,11].”
On-line Integration of Semantic Information from Speech and Gesture: Insights from Event-related Brain Potentials (2007, background): “That is, listeners use the global semantic representation from the sentence or discourse context to integrate the meaning of each upcoming word immediately into an overall message representation (e.g., Hagoort, 2003a, 2003b; Van Berkum, Zwitserlood, Brown, & Hagoort, 2003; Van Berkum, Hagoort, & B”
An Activation-Based Model of Sentence Processing as Skilled Memory Retrieval (2005, methodology): “It has been used to model qualitative garden path and embedding phenomena, and has neurobiological support (Hagoort, 2003).”
Investigating scalar implicatures in a truth-value judgement task: evidence from event-related brain potentials (2016, background): “…interpretation of the P600 does not seem to be straightforward and it has been suggested that the P600may reflect more general or combinatorial repair processes that are aimed at resolving inconsistency in the input (Hagoort, 2003; Kolk and Chwilla, 2007; Kuperberg, 2007; Van Herten et al., 2005).”