Sentence examples for semantic violations from inspiring English sources

Crucially, qualitatively distinct ERP-profiles emerged for syntactic and conceptual semantic violations which we also tested here.

Over posterior sites the same violations elicited a P600/SPS starting at about 600 ms. The semantic violations elicited an N400 effect.

Experiment 2 partly replicated the design of Experiment 1, but with differences in rate of presentation and in the distribution of items over subjects, and without semantic violations.

Violation techniques have been in use since at least 1980, when Kutas and Hillyard first reported ERP evidence that semantic violations elicited an N400 effect.

The N400 to semantic violations was unaffected by additional syntactic violations.

As expected, semantic violations within the sentence elicited N400 and P600 components in the ERP.

This N400 deflection appeared to be unaffected of whether the auditory adjective of Task 2 preceding the semantic violation was syntactically matching or mismatching to the violating visual adjective, as reflected in the absence of any main effects of Matching, all Fs<1.

In two studies subjects were required to read Dutch sentences that in some cases contained a syntactic violation, in other cases a semantic violation.

Five fMRI language stimuli were tested in 20 healthy volunteers: (i) word generation to a given letter (WG); (ii) verb generation to a given noun (VG); (iii) generation of groups of words (GW); (iv) detection of a semantic violation in sentences (SV); and (v) detection of pseudowords (PW).

Violations consisted in noun adjective number or gender disagreements (syntactic violation), noun adjective semantic incompatibility (semantic violation), or both (combined violation).

The first incorrect sentence version contained a semantic violation due to an unacceptable combination of noun and adjective.