Academic journal article Quarterly Journal of Chinese Studies

The Cognitive Processing Mechanism of the Double Object Structure of Chinese Language in Brain: Evidence from Event-Related Potentials

Academic journal article Quarterly Journal of Chinese Studies

The Cognitive Processing Mechanism of the Double Object Structure of Chinese Language in Brain: Evidence from Event-Related Potentials

Article excerpt

(ProQuest: ... denotes non-USASCII text omitted.)

INTRODUCTION

There is still disagreement on what category of the double object should be in Chinese language, since very few of these words are fully grammaticalized in modern Chinese, meanwhile, the structure of double object in Chinese is very complicated in semantics and syntax. Therefore, the use of event-related potentials (ERPs) in the experiment helps to provide useful neuroscience evidence for the solution of this debate and its cognitive mechanism in brain. By examine given double object, taken double object and atypical double object made by bivalent-verbs object will helps us to acknowledge the interaction among them as well as difference and similarities.

RESULTS

Behavioral data

The mean reaction time of given double object(...), taken double object (... and atypical double object (...) were 794.41 ± 130.26ms, 829.97 ± 126.52ms, the error percentages were 6%, 6.8%, 11.3%. The result shows there were no big difference in the reaction time of the three phrases. F (2, 39) =0.336, p=0.717. Also no significant difference in the error percentage analysis, F (2, 39) =1.816, p=0.176. (One-way ANOVA)

ERP database at the end of the phrases

By looking and comparing the ERPs amplitude waves of three double object, no difference was seen. At 150-230ms windows, we analyze areas of the fronto-temporal and central sites and from 270-420ms windows, 500-650ms windows we analyzed data of the frontal lobes.

First of all, there was "act and react" phenomenal, by repeated-measures analysis the P2 waves (with electrodes FC1, FCZ, FC2, Cl, CZ, C2, CPI, CPZ, CP2). F (1.9, 25.9) =9.42, p=0.001, had no electrode pole reactivity. F (4.6, 60.9) =0.092, p=0.47 (Fig 3-3). This show given double object and atypical double object have significant difference ofp<0.05. Nonetheless, there is no significant difference between given double object and taken double object, since their P value was 0.059.

N400 had time windows ranged from 270-420ms. The two important ingrediants that effect the analyzation were: three double object X negativity of electrodes (F3, FZ, F4, FC3, FCZ, FC4, C3, CZ, C4, CP3, CPZ, CP4). The result shows there were major stimuli and react response, F (1.5, 19.8) =4.21, p=0.039, without any interaction between sentences and electrode pole reactivity, F (4.6, 59.4) =15.1, p=0.206. (Fig. 3-4). Typical given double object and typical double object have significant p value difference, p=0.002. However, typical given double object and taken double object have no significant difference in their peak, p=0.629. There was still no significant difference in peak between taken double object and atypical double object, p=0.09. This means N400 which been stimulated by taken double object was between those two. So we can say given double object and atypical double object were at opposite pole.

From the time frame of 500-650ms windows, we analyzed two important factors that effect LPC. That as three kinds of double object X negativity of electrodes (FZ, FCZ, C3, CZ, C4, CPZ). The results shows there was significant "act" and "react" response of those double object, F(1.8, 23.8)=3.63, p=0.045. Any sentence X electrode reactivity, F (4.2, 55.7)=0.74, p=0.578. (Fig. 3-5). After comparing, we found that there was significant difference between given double object and atypical double object, since their p values is greater than 0.05, p<0.05. Given double object and atypical double object also had significant difference of p<0.05. On the other hands, taken double object and atypical double object had p value of 0.743, which shows no greater differences between those two. By looking at graphs of EPRs, we can see LPC1 (500-650ms) was located in frontal, mid-frontal, central and temporal sites of brain. From 650-800ms windows, we had analyzed LPC, three kinds of double object X negativity of electrodes. (F3, FZ, F4, FC3, FCZ, FC4, C3, CZ, C4, CPZ), the result shows there was significant "act" and "react" response of those double object, F (1. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.