Accepted Manuscript. (i) immediately on acceptance: sharing of the Accepted Manuscript by an author: via the author’s non-commercial personal homepage or blog via the author’s research institute or institutional repository for Internal Institutional Use or as part of an invitation-only research collaboration work-group directly by providing copies to the author’s students or to research collaborators for their personal use for private scholarly sharing as part of an invitation-only work group on commercial sites with which the publisher has a hosting agreement
Accepted Manuscript. It could therefore be that the reading of a number mismatch between a determiner and a noun blocks the building of a basic syntactic unit, impeding further analytical steps such as conceptual and lexical integration of the two words (cf. Xxxxxx and Carreiras, 2005). In contrast, the more complex representation underlying subject-verb pairs could facilitate the establishment of a relation between the two words even in the presence of mismatching number values, since the processing system would be still able to determine that the ill-formed pair refers to a dancing event. From a neuro-anatomical perspective, the qualitative differences between the two dependencies predicted by these theoretical accounts can emerge in qualitative and/or quantitative terms. In the former case, difference should be reflected in the engagement of distinct neural networks that support the two types of agreement, while in the latter, greater or lesser neural responses within the same network would be found. In addition, differences between the two patterns (nominal and subject-verb agreement) may also arise from the different interpretive outcomes that the syntactic integration of these two types of structures produces. While in the former case interpretation leads to associating a linguistic stimulus (“El anillo”) to a referent in the external world (a circle-shaped object), interpretation of a subject-verb agreement relation (“Él baila”) implies building a richer semantic representation that encompasses not only the identification of entities in the external world, but also their thematic and discourse roles in the dancing event that the agreement relation describes. This could therefore lead to differential patterns of activation that qualitatively and/or quantitatively differ across nominal and subject-verb agreement in areas that have been associated with semantic integration and conceptual processing, such as the anterior temporal cortex and/or the angular gyrus (Binder and Xxxxx, 2011; Binder et al., 2009; Bornkessel-Schlesewsky and Schlesewsky, 2013; Xxx et al., 2008; Xxxxxxxx et al., 2014). In parallel to these language-specific operations, an amodal conflict-monitoring system operates, whose function is to prevent behavioral mistakes by monitoring the presence of conflicting cues (for a discussion of this topic see 2011; 2010; van de Meerendonk et al., 2009). Previous findings point to the anterior cingulate cortex (Xxxxxx and xxx Xxxx, 2007; Xxxxxx et al., 2007; 2011; 2...
Accepted Manuscript. In the case of the mediation analyses, both models (the mediator model and the response model) were tested for the three clusters (left inferior frontal, left temporal and precuneus-cuneus). These analyses allow us to identify the potential effect of the task difficulty over the causal pathway between the treatment [critical manipulation: Mismatch vs. Match in Determiner-Noun pairs and Mismatch vs. Match in Subject-Verb pairs] and the brain response [interaction effect at the neural response level]. The mediator model is represented by the semi-circle in the causal diagram (Figure 2S), where the causal effect of the treatment on the outcome is transmitted through an intermediate variable or a mediator [behavioural measures: RT or error rates]. The response model is represented by the triangle, where the behavioural measures and the critical manipulation act as predictors of the brain response. The effects of RT and error rates as mediator variables were estimated separately, represented by the black and the grey lines respectively. However, similar results emerged for the two analyses. The causal response effect between the treatment and the brain response outcome was significant for the three clusters. In contrast, no significant direct effect was found between the behavioural measures and the brain response outcome. Similarly, for the three clusters, the mediator model effects considering the RT as a mediator variable between treatment and neural response were not significant (p > 0.05). These results suggest that the interaction effect between the Type of Word Pair and the Agreement Pattern found at the neural level are not biased by the task difficulty.
Accepted Manuscript for the response times. In the following paragraphs we discuss how these main effects and interactions resulting from the current design fit with previous evidence concerning agreement processing, emphasizing the three different circuits where the interactions emerged. Conflict-monitoring system Firstly, a bilateral widespread network results from the contrast Number Match > Number Mismatch, including regions such as the anterior and middle cingulate cortex, the precuneus-cuneus, the dorsal part of the middle frontal gyrus and the angular gyrus. It is not surprising that different kinds of agreement dependency share this pattern of response. The increases in the activation of the dorsal part of the middle frontal gyrus often covaries with significant increases in the de-activation patterns of the anterior cingulate cortex (the hub of the conflict monitoring system, Xxxxxx and xxx Xxxx, 2007; Xxxxxx et al., 2007) and the angular gyrus (the sub-region associated with the default mode network, (see Seghier et al., 2012 for a revision of this topic). The coupling between these regions probably reflects the engagement of conflict monitoring mechanisms and the subsequent re-analysis and repair processes triggered by the grammatical error detection, a common process taking place for both types of dependencies. The involvement of this monitoring system in the processing of mismatches7 is consistent with previous evidence (Bambini et al., 2011; Xxxxx et al., 2004; Xxxxxxxxx et al., 2003; Xxxxxxxxx et al., 2008; Xxxxx et al., 2008; Ni et al., 2000; Xxxxxx et al., 2005; Xxxxxxxx et al., 2014; 2011; 2010; xxx xx Xxxxxxxxxx xx xx., 0000; Ye and Zhou, 2009) and may subserve the generation of the P600 effect typically reported for this type of manipulations (Xxxx and Xxxxxxxx, 2006; Xxxxxxx et al., 2011b; Xxxxxxxx et al., 2011; Xxxxx-Xxxxxxx and Carreiras, 2007). In line with this hypothesis, previous evidence has demonstrated the contribution of the anterior cingulate cortex in the generation of this late positive response (Du et al., 2013; Xxxxxxxx et al., 2010). This amodal monitoring system, probably working in parallel to the language-specific machinery, seems to be enhanced whenever an inconsistency is detected, independently of its nature, in order to prevent behavioural mistakes. The involvement of this monitoring system during the processing of these two types of dependencies is also 7 These regions exhibited negative responses patterns (de-activation) compared ...
Accepted Manuscript. Authors’ notes This research has been partially supported by Grants CONSOLIDER-INGENIO2010 CSD2008-00048 and PSI2012-31448 from the Spanish Government and ERC-2011- ADG-295362 grant from the European Research Council. S.M was supported by a Gipuzkoako Foru Aldundia Fellowship. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, BasqueCenter on Cognition, Brain and Language, Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx 00, 0000, Xxxxxxxx, Xxxxx (email: x.xxxxxxxxx@xxxx.xx).
Accepted Manuscript. Figure Captions
Accepted Manuscript. 3 or not-for-profit sectors. ACCEP XXX XXXXX CRIP T 4 5 Conflict of Interest: Two authors (X,X) have a material interest in the xXXX® telerehabilitation system. 6 They have not been directly involved in the collection or analysis of data in this study.
