Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Brain potentials indicate immediate use of prosodic cues in natural speech processing

Nature Neuroscience volume 2, pages 191–196 (1999)Cite this article

Abstract

Spoken language, in contrast to written text, provides prosodic information such as rhythm, pauses, accents, amplitude and pitch variations. However, little is known about when and how these features are used by the listener to interpret the speech signal. Here we use event–related brain potentials (ERP) to demonstrate that intonational phrasing guides the initial analysis of sentence structure. Our finding of a positive shift in the ERP at intonational phrase boundaries suggests a specific on–line brain response to prosodic processing. Additional ERP components indicate that a false prosodic boundary is sufficient to mislead the listener's sentence processor. Thus, the application of ERP measures is a promising approach for revealing the time course and neural basis of prosodic information processing.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Prosody–syntax mismatch.
Figure 2: Closure positive shift.
Figure 3: Sentence–specific ERPs.
Figure 4: ERPs after pause removal.
Figure 5: Prosodic parameters.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Marslen–Wilson, W. S. et al. Prosodic effects in minimal attachment, Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 45A, 73–87 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Warren, P., Grabe, E. & Nolan, F. Prosody, phonology, and parsing in closure ambiguities. Lang. Cogn. Processes 10, 457– 486 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Stirling, L. & Wales, R. Does prosody support or direct sentence processing? Lang. Cogn. Processes 11, 193 –212 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Frazier, L. & Rayner, K. Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cogn. Psychol. 14, 178– 210 (1982).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Frazier, L. in Attention and Performance XII: The Psychology of Reading (ed. Coltheart, M.) 559–589 (Erlbaum, London, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Taraban, R. & McClelland, J. R. Constituent attachment and thematic role assignment in sentence processing: Influence of context based expectations. J. Mem. Lang. 27, 597– 632 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Altman, G. T. M., Garnham, A. & Dennis, Y. Avoiding the garden–path: Eye movements in context. J. Mem. Lang. 31, 685– 712 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cutler, A., Dahan, D. & van Donselaar, W. Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: A literature review. Lang. Speech 40, 141– 201 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Blumstein, S. E. in The Cognitive Neurosciences (ed. Gazzaniga, M. S.) 915 –929 (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995 ).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hagoort, P. & Kutas, M. in Handbook of Neuropsychology Vol.10 (eds. Boller, F. & Grafman, J.) 105–134 (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Swaab, T. Y. The Functional Locus of Comprehension Deficits in Aphasia: An Electrophysiological Approach (Ponsen & Looijen, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Osterhout, L. & Holcomb, P. J. Event–related brain potentials and syntactic anomaly: Evidence of anomaly detection during the perception of continuous speech. Lang. Cogn. Processes 8, 413–437 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Osterhout, L., Holcomb, P. J. & Swinney, D. A. Brain potentials elicited by garden–path sentences. Evidence of the application of verb information during parsing. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 20, 786– 806 (1994).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Osterhout, L. & Holcomb, P. J. in Electrophysiology of Mind: Event–Related Potentials and Cognition (eds. Rugg, M. D. & Coles, M. G. H.) 171–215 (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Friederici, A. D., Steinhauer, K., Mecklinger, A. & Meyer, M. Working memory constraints on syntactic ambiguity resolution as revealed by electrical brain responses. Biol. Psychol. 47, 193–221 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Kutas, M. & Hillyard, S. A. Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruency. Science 207, 203–205 (1980).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Holcomb, P. J. & Neville, H. J. Natural speech processing: An analysis using event–related brain potentials. Psychobiology 19, 286–300 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kutas, M. & van Petten, C. in Handbook of Psycholinguistics (ed. Gernsbacher, M. A.) 83–143 (Academic, San Diego, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Friederici, A. D., Steinhauer, K. & Frisch, S. Lexical integration: Sequential effects of syntactic and semantic information. Mem. Cogn. (in press).

  20. Nespor, M. & Vogel, I. Prosodic Phonology (Foris, Dordrecht, 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Selkirk, E. O. Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1984).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Halle, M. & Vergnaud, J. R. An Essay on Stress (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gernsbacher, M. A. & Jescheniak, J. D. Cataphoric devices in spoken discourse. Cogn. Psychol. 29, 24–58 (1995).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Rösler, F., Friederici, A. D., Pütz, P. & Hahne, A. Event–related brain potentials while encountering semantic and syntactic constraint violations. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 5, 345–362 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Friedman, D., Simson, R., Ritter, W. & Papin, I. The late positive component (P300) and information processing in sentences. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 38, 255–262 (1975).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Van Petten, C. & Kutas, M. Influences of semantic and syntactic context on open– and closed–class words. Mem. Cogn. 19, 95–112 ( 1991).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Osterhout, L. & Hagoort, P. A superficial resemblance doen't necessarily mean that you're part of the family: Counterarguments to Coulson, King, and Kutas (1998) in the P600/SPS–P300 debate. Lang. Cogn. Processes (in press).

  28. Friederici, A. D. The time course of syntactic activation during language processing: A model based on neuropsychological and neurophysiological data. Brain Lang. 50, 259–281 ( 1995).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Hopf, J.–M., Bayer, J., Bader, M. & Meng, M. Event–related brain potentials and case information in syntactic ambiguities. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 10, 264–280 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Bader, M. in Reanalysis in Sentence Processing (eds. Ferreira, F. & Fodor, J. D.) (Kluwer, Dordrecht, in press).

  31. Beckman, M. E. The parsing of prosody. Lang. Cogn. Processes 11, 17–67 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Fodor, J. D. Learning to parse? J. Psycholinguistic Res. 27, 285–319 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ross, E. D. in Behavioral Neurology and Neuropsychology (eds. Feinberg, T. E. & Farah, M. J.) 699–709 (McGraw–Hill, New York, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Oldfield, R. C. The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychology 9, 97–113 (1975).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Regan, D. Human Brain Electrophysiology: Evoked Potentials and Evoked Magnetic Fields in Science and Medicine (Elsevier, New York, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Huynh, H. & Feldt, L. A. Conditions under which mean square ratios in repeated measurement designs have exact F–distributions. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 65, 1582–1589 (1979).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Keppel, G. Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook (Prentice–Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the comments of Lee Osterhout and Gerry Altman on an earlier version of the manuscript. We also thank Katja Kühn, Annett Schirmer and Franziska Kopp for their assistance in generating the stimulus materials and in analyzing the signals. This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (FR 519/17–1).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neuropsychology, Max Planck Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, PO Box 500 355, D–04303, Leipzig , Germany

    Karsten Steinhauer, Kai Alter & Angela D. Friederici

Authors
  1. Karsten Steinhauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kai Alter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Angela D. Friederici
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karsten Steinhauer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Steinhauer, K., Alter, K. & Friederici, A. Brain potentials indicate immediate use of prosodic cues in natural speech processing. Nat Neurosci 2, 191–196 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1038/5757

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/5757

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing