A consistent result in the 10 studies in Table 1 is that violations of S-V chords caused P600 effects, but with latencies, amplitudes, and scalp distribution. However, only half of these studies also reported left anterior negativity (LAN) or anterior negativity (AN) before P600. The variability of LAN effects is often explained by differences in morphological characteristics, while that of the P600 is explained by the fact that the task was passive or active (for example. B Kolk and Chwilla, 2007) or if the injury was syntactically simple or complex (for example. B Kutas & Hillyard, 1983; O`Rourke and Van Petten, 2011). However, the studies highlighted in Table 1 also show that the P600 effects reported in these studies also vary due to a number of experimental factors, including the manner of presentation, the position of the offence and the nature of the offence used. For example, studies using visual modality have reported a LAN with a latency of about 300 ms and a P600 of about 500 ms. In contrast, studies using the auditory modality have reported ERP effects with early latencies. For example, (Shen et al., 2013), the LAN started at 140 ms, while Hasting and Kotz (2008) reported the LAN with a start of 100 ms and a P600 with an onsset latency of 300 ms. The verbs were inserted into support sentences composed of monosylbic words, which made it possible to insubshance the length of the expression and the load of transformation. The supporting sentences had a singular vs. plural subject to allow manipulation of the nature of the infringement (verb without -S/ error of omission vs Verbform with − S/Commission error).
Verbs appeared in the middle vs. at the end of the entire medium for expressing-medialen vs. Create conditions for final expression (as shown in Table 2 above). In the middle position of expression, the verb was always followed by a preposition with vocal beginning to avoid the mask of the morpheme in the previous verb. All sentence stimuli were accompanied by cartoon images designed by a professional cartoonist (see example in Figure 1). The drawings had a constant visual complexity to avoid distracted details. The purpose of the images was to maintain the participants` attention and turn their eyes to the computer screen to minimize head movements (muscle movements introduce artifacts into the ERP data). Overall, our results are consistent with studies that reported P600 gradient effects following various manipulations in the event of a violation (e.g..B. Coulson et al., 1998; Nevins et al., 2007). These studies also suggest that the importance of the offence (e.g.B. due to the nature of the morphological characteristic) affects the processing of sentences.
The difference is that, unlike previous studies, the present study looked at the effects of auditory sasance during the processing of S-V chords. Our study is therefore the first to show that the relative power of perception due to expression position effects interagulates with syntactic processing during the online processing of S-V infringements and that this interaction takes place in the later phase of syntactic reanalysis. . . .