The Cognitive Processing Mechanism of the Double Object Structure of Chinese Language in Brain: Evidence from Event-Related Potentials
Hong Liu,Zhong-nan Wang,Yumeng Wang,Yilin Ye,Huan-hai Fang
2014-01-01
Abstract:(ProQuest: ... denotes non-USASCII text omitted.)INTRODUCTIONThere 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.RESULTSBehavioral dataThe 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 phrasesBy 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 and 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 ofpN400 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 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