Biological Psychology 83 (2010) 176–190

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Biological Psychology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biopsycho

Electrophysiological evidence of interaction between contextual expectation and

semantic integration during the processing of collocations
Nicola Molinaro a,*, Manuel Carreiras a,b
a
BCBL, Basque Center on Cognition, Brain and Language, Paseo Mikeletegi, 69, 20009 Donostia, Spain
b
IKERBASQUE, Basque Foundation for Science, Spain

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Despite the potentially infinite creativity of language, many words are patterned in ordered strings called
Received 30 July 2009 collocations. Final words of these clusters are highly predictable; in addition, their overall meaning can
Accepted 14 December 2009 vary on the literality dimension, ranging from (figurative) idiomatic strings to literal strings. These
Available online 22 December 2009
structures thus offer a natural linguistic scenario to contrast ERP correlates of contextual expectation and
semantic integration processes during comprehension. In this study, expected endings elicited a positive
Keywords: peak around 300 ms compared to less expected synonyms, suggesting that the earlier recognition of the
ERPs
string leads to the specific pre-activation of the lexical items that conclude the expression. On the other
P300
hand, meaning variations of these fixed strings (either a literal or a figurative whole meaning) affected
N400
Collocation ERPs only around 400 ms, i.e. in the frontal portion of the N400. These findings are discussed within a
Predictive mechanism more general cognitive framework as outlined in Kok’s (2001) dual categorization model.
Semantic integration ß 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In everyday conversation a person utters approximately 4.7
million novel and 21.4 million frozen metaphors over a 60-year
average life-span (Pollio et al., 1977). Jackendoff (1995) noted that
the number of fixed expressions in American English is roughly
similar to the number of words (around 80,000). These simple counts
show the importance of studying fixed expressions for understand-
ing natural language processing mechanisms. In computational
linguistics there is an increasing interest in fixed phrases, sometimes
termed collocations (Sinclair, 1991). A collocation is defined as a
sequence of words or terms which co-occur more often than would
be expected by chance. Critically, substituting a word in a collocation
with a related word could result in a meaningful string, but the
collocational configuration would no longer be recognizable: for
example we cannot say quick food instead of fast food although fast
and quick are synonyms. These particular combinations (e.g., fast
food) just sound ‘right’ to native speakers, who use them all the time,
whereas other combinations (e.g., quick food) carrying the same
meaning sound unnatural or simply wrong.
Collocation refers to a very general category of fixed expres-
sions that comprise many linguistic phenomena (for a discussion
see Fellbaum, 2007), such as idioms (break the ice), binomials (safe
and sound), antinomies (black–white) and clichés (at loggerheads or
between a rock and a hard place).
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 943 309 052; fax: +34 943 309 052.
E-mail address: n.molinaro@bcbl.eu (N. Molinaro).
These structures make speech more natural and easily under-
standable, giving semantically richer ways of expression. In addition,
it is easier to remember and use language in chunks or blocks rather
than as single words. Some studies on idiom comprehension
(Cacciari and Tabossi, 1988; Konopcka and Bock, 2009; Sprenger et
al., 2006) propose that multi-word units are stored in long-term
memory as constellations of words strongly connected and
configuring larger lexical units (hence the term superlemmas,
Sprenger et al., 2006). The cognitive system may use long-term
memory as a relatively abundant resource to compensate for the
limited working memory capacity resources by creating these
strongly connected multi-word configurations. In this way, colloca-
tion strings reduce the possibly infinite combination of meanings
and the relative processing cost, facilitating linguistic communica-
tion through conventional expressions shared by a linguistic
community (Cacciari, 1993). However, even if they are stored as
connected multi-word units, their internal structure (words) is still
accessible and undergoes, for example, regular syntactic analysis.
Therefore, these structures are a very valuable test-bed for
investigating context-sensitive mechanisms during language com-
prehension and for elucidating language processing mechanisms
(e.g., Roehm et al., 2007; Vespignani et al., in press).
1.1. Contextual predictability and the N400
A large number of studies have focused on predictive
mechanisms that anticipate the features of upcoming words,
based on contextual (semantic and syntactic) information. Kimball

0301-0511/$ – see front matter ß 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2009.12.006
 N. Molinaro, M. Carreiras / Biological Psychology 83 (2010) 176–190
(1975) noted that it is frequently possible for speakers to tell what is
coming next in a sentence. See Federmeier (2007), Kamide (2008),
Staub and Clifton (2006), Van Berkum (2008) for summaries of
experimental evidence of predictive mechanisms.
From a neurophysiological perspective, ERP waveforms in the
250–500 ms time window have been shown to be sensitive to the
expectancy of a word in a semantic context: throughout this time
window it has been suggested that a unique component, named
the N400, mirrors a semantics-based predictive mechanism at
work in language comprehension (Federmeier, 2007; Kutas and
Hillyard, 1984).
This component was initially proposed to indicate the (post-
lexical) cost of integrating the meaning of a word with the
semantic representation of a previous context (Brown and
Hagoort, 1993; Holcomb, 1993): semantically anomalous words
in a sentence context elicited large N400 effects (Kutas and
Hillyard, 1980); in this frame, the more difficult the combination of
the individual word with the previous context, the larger the N400
component.
However, visual word recognition studies – using isolated word
stimuli – reported the N400 as a correlate of the process of
retrieving properties of individual words or semantic concepts
from memory (lexical view): the more difficult this recognition, the
larger the negativity around 400 ms (for a review, see Barber and
Kutas, 2007). For example, both Holcomb et al. (2002), and
Debruille (1998) reported larger N400 effects due to the
interference of orthographic neighbors in visual word recognition
(for similar effects related to the syllable see Barber et al., 2004;
Carreiras et al., 2005). These results could not be explained by the
integration account, since there was no context (or prime stimulus)
that could influence the processing of the target word.
To account for these findings, it has been suggested that the
N400 reported in sentence comprehension studies could reflect the
level of pre-activation of a word, given the previous semantic
context (for review see Federmeier, 2007; Lau et al., 2008). This
hypothesis derives from the fact that the N400 component has
been consistently reported to be modulated by the ‘level of
expectation’ generated by the semantic content of the previous
sentence fragment, as in He liked lemon and sugar in his tea/coffee
(Kutas and Hillyard, 1984): the larger the cloze-probability1 of a
word in a context (for tea), the more reduced the amplitude of the
N400 compared to an unexpected word (coffee). According to this
approach, the cloze-probability N400 reflects the influence of
contextual information in word recognition: the facilitation of
processing words in a sentence reflects the extent to which the
context pre-activates specific properties of those words.
Further ERP studies have observed that N400s correlate with
other ERP effects elicited by words that precede the semantically
expected target word. Both Van Berkum et al. (2005) and Wicha et
al. (2004) reported ERP differences at words (adjectives) that share
the same gender with a following expected word or not. Also, De
Long et al. (2005) reported an N400-like effect at the indefinite a/an
article that introduced a more or less expected content word (as in
The day was breezy so the boy went outside to fly a kite/an airplane), at
which the standard N400 effect was observed.
Similar findings led Lau et al. (2008) to propose that the N400
represents the amount of processing needed to recognize a word
which, in turn, could be strongly modulated by semantic
knowledge activated in the context: the stronger this contextual
pre-activation, indexed by high cloze-probability values, the easier
the recognition of the target word as indexed by the reduction of
the negativity in the N400 time window (as shown by Dambacher
et al., 2006; Molinaro et al., in press; Van Petten and Kutas, 1990).
1
The cloze-probability of a word is the proportion of people that continue a
sentence fragment with that target word (Taylor, 1953).
177
1.2. Predictive mechanisms and collocation constraints
A predictive approach could also be applied to the comprehen-
sion of multi-word collocation strings. As discussed by Cacciari and
Tabossi (1988), the recognition of an idiomatic fixed expression
(such as Maria ‘cried over spilt milk’/coffee yesterday) is obtained
incrementally: as the string unfolds, co-occurrence can create a
‘sense of familiarity’ that incrementally increases as more
constituents arrive, up to a ‘threshold’ (the so-called ‘recognition
point’) after which the idiom is recognized and then activated. Only
after the idiom recognition point (spilt in the example) is the
specific configuration of words retrieved from semantic memory.
The expectation of the idiomatic continuation (milk) is very highly
based on the configuration retrieved from semantic memory. Thus,
in line with cloze-probability ratings, an N400 modulation could be
expected if contrasting the expected idiomatic word (milk) with a
less expected word (coffee).
However, in Cacciari and Tabossi’s (1988) proposal, word pre-
activation in idiomatic strings (and in our opinion for every type of
collocation) is stronger and more categorical than that reported for
sentences not including a fixed expression, such as those studied
by Kutas and Hillyard (1984).
On the one hand, Kutas and Hillyard (1984; see also Van Petten
and Kutas, 1990) showed that the semantic context could
gradually reduce the possible completions of a sentence as it
unfolds; critically, this pre-activation is sensitive to the meaning
built up compositionally during the comprehension of the previous
context. The comprehender’s expectations thus converge on the
recognition of the more possible word using a probabilistic
strategy (without excluding other less possible completions). Also,
Federmeier and Kutas (1999) showed that the N400 for
unexpected endings (low cloze-probability rates) is reduced when
there is a semantic relation with the expected ending. These data
indicate that N400 modulation indexes the pre-activation not only
of a specific word but also of its semantic relates. In this frame, pre-
activation is not strictly related to a specific meaning but could
extend to other semantic neighbors.
On the other hand, during fixed expression comprehension a
word is pre-activated because of the interconnection among words
in long-term memory. In this sense, once a string configuration is
recognized, only those lexical items are retrieved from memory:
(top–down) expectations should not scatter too much in the
semantic network (to other semantic neighbors), but are directed
categorically toward a specific word form (as part of a recognized
configuration).
Compared to the Kutas and Hillyard study (1984, see also
Federmeier and Kutas, 1999; Van Petten and Kutas, 1990), it seems
that during the comprehension of collocations, word pre-activa-
tion is quantitatively ‘stronger’ (higher cloze-probability) and
presents less variance compared to an incrementally constraining
semantic context (as in Federmeier and Kutas, 1999).
This stronger categorical pre-activation in collocational strings
(indexed by very high cloze-probability ratings) has been shown to
largely suppress the negativity in the N400 time window (Roehm
et al., 2007; Vespignani et al., in press). However, both Roehm et
al. (2007) and Vespignani et al. (in press) interpreted this
reduction for the expected completion of the collocation as a
different component than the N400: they in fact proposed that the
more positive effect in the N400 time window is due to a positive
shift peaking at around 300 ms elicited only by highly expected
words in collocation constructions and partially overlapping with
the N400 component.
Roehm et al. (2007; replicating Kutas and Iragui, 1998)
reported a more positive effect for the (highly expected) last word
of sentences with antinomies such as The opposite of black is white
compared to less expected endings (yellow). Antonymous word
178 N. Molinaro, M. Carreiras / Biological Psychology 83 (2010) 176–190
pairs can be considered as units retrieved as such from semantic
memory (Gross et al., 1989): when participants were required to
perform a sensicality judgment of sentences containing antino-
mies (Experiment 1), the expected completions (white) elicited a
positive peak slightly before 400 ms (around 345 ms) compared to
a less expected ending (yellow), that was in turn less negative than
a semantically anomalous word (nice) that elicited a larger N400
(see Fig. 1, page 1264 in Roehm et al.’s paper). When presented
with antonymous word pairs (black/white) this positive peak was
differently affected by the task settings of the experiment: a lexical
decision task (Experiment 2) did not elicit the positive peak (see
Figs. 2 and 3, pages 1266 and 1267 in their paper); on the other
hand, an explicit antinomy judgment task (Experiment 3) triggered
the positive peak in the N400 time window compared to the
control conditions (see Fig. 4, page 1268 in their paper).
Roehm et al. (2007) identified this positive peak as a P300
component: they stated that it led to the superficial impression of
an extremely ‘reduced’ N400, and it reflected the ‘‘clear and
unambiguous expectation set up by the sentence context’’ (page
1271); this component would be different from the N400 since ‘‘the
correct identification of the predicted word (antonym) does not
require a lexical search (there is a unique prediction that may either be
fulfilled or not)’’ (page 1272). In addition, compared to the N400
that is not task sensitive, the P300 is elicited only in experimental
conditions that constrain the comprehender to develop specific
lexical expectations (as in Experiments 1 and 3).
These findings brought initial evidence that a P300/N400
complex could underly the N400 effects classically reported in the
ERP literature (see discussion of Kutas and Iragui, 1998, findings
by Roehm et al., 2007). However, the authors report P300 and
N400 modulation for different experimental conditions compared
to a condition that was unexpected but not semantically
anomalous (yellow): in their design, the overall pattern resulted
in a larger negativity for the unexpected completion (nice)
compared to a related completion (yellow) that, in turn, was more
negative than the expected completion in the whole time window
(270–470 ms). In a traditional view, the simplest explanation is to
consider this effect as determined by the modulation of a single ERP
component (the N400) that, in experimental conditions eliciting a
predictive analysis of the stimulus, elicits a ‘stronger’ reduction of
the ERPs in the critical time window. To better dissociate whether
two sub-components affect ERPs in the 250–500 ms time window
(and the correlated underlying processes), a manipulation that
affects one component should be crossed with a manipulation
affecting the other component. A fully crossed design would clarify
the functional relation between the hypothesized P300 component
and the widely accepted N400, both elicited by the same
condition(s).
Vespignani et al. (in press) also reported a posterior-distributed
more positive effect in the (classically considered) N400 time
window for the expected completion in idiomatic strings (milk in
Maria cried over spilt milk yesterday) compared to an unexpected
word in the same position (coffee). The ERP effect for the expected
completion showed a positive deflection peaking around 300 ms in
the parietal electrodes; this effect (recognized as a P300, in line
with Roehm et al., 2007) extended into the N400 time window, so
that ERPs did not allow evaluation of whether this more positive
effect reflected an enhanced P300, a reduced N400 effect, or both.
However, the authors manipulated (by substitution) also the word
before the target word (i.e. Maria cried over unmade bed. . . instead
of spilt milk): here the authors did not find a similar deflection
around 300 ms, but a more classical N400 modulation (with a later
onset of the effect and a different topographical distribution). A
critical difference between the two positions was the cloze-
probability level (see Fig. 2): no P300 deflection is evident when
cloze-probability was 0.37 (compared to a substitution whose level
was 0.05), while, in the following sentence position, the P300 was
elicited by the expected completion whose cloze-probability was
0.86 (compared to 0.02). This different effect at the two positions
was supported by a dissociation emerging in a temporal Principal
Component Analysis (tPCA) that showed two distinct sources of
variance, one larger around 300 ms after the target word presenta-
tion and one 400 ms after the presentation of the previous word.
Direct evidence of a differential semantic influence of the context
in a linguistic scenario that elicits such P300 effect would be
desirable to better support the dissociation between the P300 and
the N400 during language comprehension. This would allow us to
evaluate if the P300 represents lexical pre-activation without any
demands for semantic integration: once a collocation configuration
has been retrieved from memory (and its meaning activated), there
is no need of further memory-search during the reading of the
following words (a prediction that could be either fulfilled or not,
Roehm et al., 2007, page 1272). Such strong categorical expectation
(indexed by high cloze-probability levels) should elicit this positive
peak around 300 ms. In addition, showing that the N400 is sensitive
to the semantic properties of the previous context would support the
hypothesis that this component is functionally different from the
P300: in line with the previous findings, only the N400 could be
associated to the additional semantic processing difficulties.
It should be clarified that the P300 component discussed in
these two previous studies was considered as part of a larger family
of positive components with functionally different meanings.
Classically (Picton, 1993; Donchin and Coles, 1988; Verleger,
1988), the P300 has been distinguished into two subcomponents:
the P3a (or novelty P300), an early positivity with a frontal
distribution that is associated with the processing of novel stimuli,
and the P3b (or oddball P300), a component with a more posterior
distribution elicited by the processing of task-relevant stimuli.
Finally, some authors (Frishkoff, 2007; Hill et al., 2005, 2002) have
investigated the interplay between the N400 and the LPC
component, a task-related positivity that occurs just after the
N400, critically affecting the N400 amplitude.
The P300 described by Roehm et al. (2007) and Vespignani et al.
(in press) shows an early peak right after 300 ms (similar to the P3a),
but its distribution is posterior (similar to the P3b). In addition it
could not be related to an explicit task response such as the LPC
(Frishkoff, 2007; Hill et al., 2002, 2005). However, Vespignani et al.
(in press) noted that the nature of this early language-related P300 is
more similar to the P3b for two main reasons: (i) this component has
been interpreted as reflecting the closure of an active expectation for
a task-relevant event (Verleger, 1988) and the nature of collocation
processing seems best captured by this context-closure explanation
(see also the prediction-verification mechanism offered by Kok,
2001) and (ii) the latency of the P3b can vary as a function of the time
needed to categorize a stimulus, being earlier for highly pre-
activated word stimuli.
1.3. The present study
Compared to previous studies (Roehm et al., 2007; Vespignani et
al., in press) we adopted a different perspective. The P300 and the
N400 appear sensitive to cloze-probability manipulations: these
two components are superficially evident as a more positive
waveform for a contextually highly expected word compared to a
less expected word in the time interval between about 250 and
500 ms. For example, Vespignani et al. (in press) brought initial
evidence of two separate sources of variance in the 200–500 ms time
interval, by performing a temporal Principal Component Analysis.
However, this mirrored different ERP effects in different sentence
position, thus involving different word stimuli. On the other hand,
when the N400 is boosted by semantic violations in a collocation
context (as in Roehm et al., 2007) no P300 is triggered, since this
 N. Molinaro, M. Carreiras / Biological Psychology 83 (2010) 176–190
component appears to be elicited only by highly expected
completions.
In order to investigate the existence of a P300/N400 ERP
complex in scenarios that should differently modulate these two
components, we manipulated the literality of the string. A series of
studies has shown that the N400 is modulated by figurative
meanings: when a string has a figurative meaning the N400
component is larger compared to when the meaning is literal. This
enhanced N400 has been reported for comprehension of meta-
phors (Coulson and Van Petten, 2002; Pynte et al., 1996; Sotillo
et al., 2005), proverbs (Ferretti et al., 2007) and jokes (Coulson and
Kutas, 2001). According to Coulson and Van Petten (2002) this
additional N400 elicited by comprehension of enriched meanings
is evidence of a more general mechanism of integration of ‘distant’
meanings in semantic memory, called ‘conceptual blending’
(Fauconnier and Turner, 1998): blending theory proposes (as
stated by Coulson and Van Petten, 2002, page 959) that ‘‘[a
figurative string] taxes the comprehension system for two reasons:
first, it involves the establishment of mappings between elements in
distantly related domains, and second, it often requires the activation
of background knowledge for information from the two domains to be
integrated’’ . For example, saying That surgeon is a butcher requires
the connection of distant semantic domains and their relative
implications: contrasts and similarities between the techniques
and instruments of these two professions produces the concept of a
surgeon who uses coarse methods in his job. This semantic cost
increases the N400: in this view, there is no special figurative
meaning comprehension mechanism, in that the increased N400
only reflects the processing effort needed to connect distant
semantic representations.
While the N400 is modulated based on the literality of language,
the P300 should not be. This latter component was shown to be
elicited both by antinomies (Roehm et al., 2007) that do not have a
figurative meaning and idioms (Vespignani et al., in press) that do
have a figurative meaning associated to the whole string. These
findings are suggestive of the fact that the P300 reflects a process
independent from the semantic properties of the string. However,
there are no studies that have evaluated the sensitivity of the P300
and the N400 to the literality of a string and to the lexical expectation
in the same experiment. Assuming that the P300 represents lexical
matching mechanisms, while the N400 correlates with the cost in
activating and connecting meanings in semantic memory, the
comprehension of figurative and literal expressions should differ-
ently affect the P300 and the N400. Direct evidence in the same
experiment and with the same conditions would better support the
dissociation of the processes underlying these two ERP components.
For this reason, we designed the present study in which we
selected two groups of collocations from a Spanish corpus (CESS-
ECE corpus; Martı́ and Taulé, 2007): in the first group the
collocation strings had a figurative meaning, while in the second
group the meaning of the string was literal (e.g. the meaning of the
expression was not different from the one derived from the
combination of the meanings of the single words). According to
Martı́ and Taulé (2007) these strings are clichés that have an
adverbial role in natural language contexts.
In order to evaluate the P300/N400 dissociation, we crossed in
one experiment the manipulation of the cloze-probability of a
specific word at the end of a collocation string and the literality of
the whole collocation. We selected only collocations in which the
cloze-probability of the last word of the string was very high
(>0.85), denoting that the collocation was already recognized
before the end of the string. We embedded these strings in
sentences and we substituted the target word with another word
that had similar lexical properties. The replacing word was not
semantically anomalous in the whole sentence context as shown in
the following examples (for the whole set of sentences see
179
Appendix A).
1. (LIT) La niña confesó en honor a la verdad/realidad haber roto el plato.
The girl confessed as an honor to the truth/reality she broke
the plate.
2. (FIG) Tuvieron que luchar contra viento y marea/frio para conseguir
estar juntos.
They had to fight against wind and tide/cold to achieve
staying together.
As showed by Vespignani et al. (in press) the P300 should have
a slightly earlier onset than the N400 (see Fig. 3 in Vespignani et al.,
in press). It should then be possible to observe differential ERP
modulations (more than one) in the time window (250–450 ms)
that is usually considered as representative of the N400 compo-
nent. If the P300 component reflects the pre-activation of a specific
lexical item once the fixed-string has been recognized (a unique
prediction that may either be fulfilled or not, Roehm et al., 2007), we
expect it to be elicited by both types of collocation in the time
interval around 300 ms (250–350 ms) time-locked to their last
word. No interaction with the literality of the string is expected. In
addition, the replacing word should not elicit the same positive
shift. In contrast, the literality of the string should differently affect
the waveforms around 400 ms (corresponding to the negative peak
of the N400): we should observe an increased negativity in the
N400 time interval (350–450 ms) for figurative collocations
compared to literal collocations. Even more specifically, an
interaction could be expected mainly in the N400 time window
between the cloze-probability effect (e.g., substitution of the last
word of the string) and the literality effect (i.e., figurative meaning
processing). Cloze-probability usually triggers a widely distributed
effect in the N400 time window for literal strings. However, it is
possible that this effect is ‘reduced’ for figurative strings. In the
later N400 time window, a figurative collocation should elicit a
larger N400 compared to the literal collocation. This literality
difference should affect the comparison between collocation and
substitution (cloze-probability effect): we expect the absolute
amplitude difference due to the cloze-probability effect to be
smaller for the figurative comparison compared to the literal
comparison. In other words, the cloze-probability effect for
figurative strings should be reduced because of the enhanced
negativity elicited by the expected completion of the figurative
collocation compared to the substitution. On the other hand, the
literal collocation would not tax the N400 semantic processor to
the same extent as the figurative string since there is no further
cost due to meaning blending (Fauconnier and Turner, 1998): this
should lead to a larger difference in the N400 time window
between collocation and substitution for the literal comparison.
From a different perspective, a more traditional view, stating
that a unique component could explain the ERP modulations in the
250–450 ms time window, predicts interactive effects between
predictability and literality across the whole time window; in this
frame, irrespective of the superficial deflections evident in the ERPs
for the expected completions, there should be no difference in the
magnitude of the effects between an earlier time window around
300 ms and a later time window around 400 ms.
Because of the difficulty in distinguishing between two partially
overlapping ERP effects, we will run a temporal Principal
Component Analysis to evaluate if there are different sources of
variance in our dataset. This statistical decomposition technique
can be used to describe features in the ERP more objectively and
more precisely than is possible to the unaided eye (Dien and
Frishkoff, 2005). Recent simulations have shown that the temporal
PCA is well suited for distinguishing between components partially
superimposed in time such as the N400 and the P300 (Dien et al.,
2007). Thus, we expect the outcome of this component analysis to
dissociate between the P300 and the N400 components.
180 N. Molinaro, M. Carreiras / Biological Psychology 83 (2010) 176–190
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Thirty-six students of the University of La Laguna (mean age:
20.22, SD: 2.43; range: 18–27) took part in the experiment for
course credit. All were right-handed and had normal or corrected
to normal vision.
2.2. Experimental stimuli
We extracted from the CESS-ECE corpus (Martı́ and Taulé, 2007) a
set of 160 collocations (either idioms or clichés). Strings consisted on
average of 4.31 words. We evaluated the familiarity of the strings in a
questionnaire given to 54 native Spanish speakers who rated the
string on a 7 point scale (1: never heard; 7: heard very often). Based
on these ratings we selected the 148 collocations that received on
average a rating higher than 4 (mean: 5.31, SD: 0.96).
These collocations were inserted in a sentence, trying to avoid
contexts that pre-activated the collocation or strange meanings.
The final word of the collocation was in position 8.2 on average
(SD: 1.29) in sentences of 12.05 words on average (SD: 1.57).
Differently from Vespignani et al. (in press) study, our target word
was always a content word.
We tested the literality of the strings with a questionnaire
presented to 62 students of the University of La Laguna. Sentences
containing the collocations were rated on a 7 point scale (1: literal
meaning; 7: figurative meaning). We obtained two groups of 60
sentences that belonged to either the Literal group (mean: 2.33;
SD: 1.27) or to the Figurative group (mean: 5.62; SD: 1.01). The
literality values of the two groups were statistically different
(t(59) = 4.45, p < 0.0001)
The cloze-probability (range from 0 to 1) of the last constituent
of the string was controlled. Fifty-six Spanish students of the
University of La Laguna, were asked to complete sentence
fragments in the most natural way. The fragments were the
experimental sentences presented until the word preceding the
last word of the collocation. Cloze-probability ratings led us to
define two groups (Literal and Figurative) of 56 sentences in which
the value of the last word was on average 0.84 (SD: 0.17; no
statistical difference across groups: t(55) = 0.87). The target word
had similar lexical properties in the Literal and Figurative groups: it
was always an open-class item. Moreover, we controlled the
frequency of use (LogFreq) extracted from the LEXESP database
(Sebastiàn-Gallés et al., 2000): Literal (mean: 1.81, SD: 0.89) and
Figurative (mean: 1.63, SD: 1.01) did not statistically differ
(t(55) = 1.025). The number of letters of the target word was also
similar: Literal (mean: 5.66, SD: 2.04) and Figurative (mean: 5.41,
SD: 1.38); t(55) = 0.702. Finally, the familiarity of the target words in
the two groups did not differ: Literal (mean: 5.09, SD: 1.06) and
Figurative (mean: 5.32, SD: 1.16): t(55) = 0.94. We evaluated the
number of occurrences of each collocation also in the CREA corpus
(Corpus de Referencia del Español Actual; http://corpus.rae.es/
creanet.html): the Literal collocations had on average 734.46
occurrences and the Figurative collocations 733.89 occurrences
(t(55) = .01).
For each sentence we replaced the target word belonging to the
collocation with a lexically similar word that did not render the
resulting sentence semantically anomalous: there was only a main
effect of cloze-probability of the target word between the
Collocation (mean: 0.84; SD: 0.17) and the Substitution condition
(mean: 0.02; SD: 0.01). Thus, we replaced the target word
with a synonymous word (contrario ! opuesto, contrary; dia-
blo ! demonio, devil) in 31% of our collocations (18 in the Literal
and 17 in the Figurative group) and with a semantically related
word (rey, king ! conde, count; madre, mother ! abuela, grand-
mother) in the remaining cases. Lexical factors that could affect
ERPs in the time window of interest were balanced. Thus,
logarithm of the frequency of use (Collocation mean: 1.71, SD:
0.94; Substitution: 1.65, SD: 0.97; t(111) = 0.612), number of
letters (Collocation: 5.53, SD: 1.74; Substitution: 5.71, SD: 1.62;
t(111) = 1.049) and number of orthographic neighbors (Collo-
cation: 4.12, SD: 5.06; Substitution: 3.33, SD: 4.6; t(111) = 1.36)
did not differ between the two experimental conditions. The
degree of semantic relation between the target word (in the
Collocation condition) and its Substitution was similar between
the Figurative (M = 0.026) and the Literal (M = 0.032) items
(t(55) = 0.37, p = 0,72), according to the norms of free semantic
association in Spanish (http://inico.usal.es/usuarios/gimc/normas/
index_nal.asp).
From our set of sentences we obtained two separate lists so that
participants did not see the same sentence in the two experimental
conditions. The lists were presented to the participants using the
Latin square design.
2.3. Experimental procedure
Participants were tested individually in a silent room. They
were seated approximately 60 cm from the computer monitor on
which sentences were visually presented word by word (maxi-
mum visual angle: 58) after the presentation of a fixation cross at
the center of the screen. Words were displayed in white letters on a
dark-grey background. Each word was presented for 300 ms
followed by a 300-ms blank screen, the inter-trial interval was
variable. Sentence order was randomized and every five sentences
on average participants were asked to answer a YES/NO
comprehension question by pressing the corresponding button
on a keyboard; comprehension question appeared randomly
across the whole experiment. YES/NO button position was
counterbalanced across subjects.
2.4. EEG recording and analysis
EEG was recorded through a 32-channels BrainAmp system.
Twenty-eight Ag/AgCl electrodes were arranged on an EasyCap
recording cap based on the 10-10 International System. Additional
external electrodes of the same material were placed on mastoids
A1, A2 and around eyes left Veog, right Veog, left Heog and right
Heog. Monopolar differential recording was referenced to the left
mastoid. Impedance was kept below 5 kV for mastoid and scalp
electrodes, and below 10 kV for EOG electrodes. Data were
acquired at a sampling rate of 250 Hz.
EEG signal was bandpass filtered off-line (0.25–30 Hz) and then
re-referenced to the right mastoid. Epochs of interest were selected,
time-locked to the target word presentation (200 to 900 ms). After
baseline correction (100 to 0 ms) epochs containing ocular and
muscular artifacts were corrected through the ICA procedure. We
applied this type of correction given the low number of stimuli per
condition (28): we decomposed the whole electroencephalogram in
Independent Components for each subject using the Infomax
algorithm. Then we focused on the components that explained at
least 60% of the variance in the left Veog electrode (referenced to
Fp1) and 30% of the variance in the left Heog electrode (referenced to
the right Heog). The time course of these components was visually
inspected (to ensure they represented real artifacts) and subtracted
to the original data. However, following visual inspection 3.4% of
epochs were excluded from the analysis (no statistical differences
among conditions, F(3,105) = 0.13). We then calculated single-
subject ERPs for each condition, that were used to calculate grand-
averaged ERPs across subjects.
Before statistical analyses of the waveforms, we evaluated the
separability of the P300 and N400 through a temporal Principal
 N. Molinaro, M. Carreiras / Biological Psychology 83 (2010) 176–190
Component Analysis (henceforth tPCA). Through this analysis it is
possible to isolate the time windows which have differential
variability across the epoch. More specifically, we considered the
time points as variables. We then performed a Varimax rotation of
the matrix made by 3888 rows (36 subjects  27 scalp electro-
des  4 conditions) and 200 columns (each containing 1 time point
each 4 ms in the [0–800] ms epoch). Compared to other rotations
(Promax or Oblimax), Varimax rotation is more strict since the
factors extracted are not correlated and it could reveal the
independence of two sub-components in the 250–450 ms time
interval. In addition, this procedure is considered more stable
compared to other oblique methods (Harman, 1976; Kaiser and
Tenke, 2006; Rösler and Manzey, 1981) accounting for more
variance (Dien, 1998). After Temporal Factors extraction (that
explained up to 90% of the total variance), we considered only the
eigenvalues (and the relative temporal factor loadings) that each
explained more than 4% of variance.
Statistical analyses were performed on the mean voltage for each
condition in specific time windows of interest as evidenced by the
tPCA. We performed two separate analyses in each time window. The
analysis in the Midline electrodes was a three-way ANOVA consider-
ing the following factors: Expectancy (Collocation vs. Substitution),
Literality (Literal vs. Figurative) and Electrode (three levels: Fz, Cz, Pz).
When interacting with the topographical Electrode factor, post-hoc
analyses were performed comparing Collocation and Substitution
conditions separately for the Literal and the Figurate manipulation: T-
tests for each electrode were corrected using the False Discovery Rate
procedure (FDR: Benjamini and Hochberg, 1995).
Lateralized ERP effects on the scalp were evaluated through a
Lateralized ANOVA on six clusters of electrodes (Lateralized
analysis). Each cluster represented the mean amplitude of four
electrodes in close positions: Left Anterior (LA: Fp1, F3, F7, FC5),
Right Anterior (RA: Fp2, F4, F8, FC6), Left Central (LC: FC1, C3, T7,
CP1), Right Central (RC: FC2, C4, T8, CP2), Left Posterior (LP: CP5,
P3, P7, O1) and Right Posterior (RP: CP6, P4, P8, O2). The scheme of
analysis considered the following factors: Expectancy and
Literality, as in the previous analysis, crossed with both Longitude
(three levels: Anterior, Central and Posterior) and Hemisphere
(two levels: Left and Right) factors. Post-hoc comparisons were
planned comparing the conditions separately for each cluster for
the Literal and Figurative manipulation (T-values FDR corrected).
For both the Midline and the Lateralized analyses we report
the 95% Confidence Interval. In addition, based on the tPCA
analysis, we ran further two-way ANOVAs (Expectancy by
Literality) with the relative post-hoc analyses, on the electrodes
that showed the peak of activity for the Temporal Factors of
interest. The Greenhouse and Geisser (1959) correction was
applied to all repeated measures with greater than one degree of
freedom in the numerator. In such cases, the corrected p-value is
reported.
3. Results
3.1. Behavioral data
Participants answered the comprehension questions with an
overall accuracy of 86.7% (SD: 8.26; range: 75.23–98.15%), with no
difference across conditions. This indicates that their level of
comprehension of the stimuli was overall acceptable.
3.2. tPCA analysis
The PCA revealed six independent Temporal Factors (TFs) that
explained more than 4% of variance each (Fig. 1).
TF1 (32.5% of variance explained), TF2 (11.3%), TF5 (4.9%) and TF6
(4.4%) showed bimodal temporal loadings peaking both before
181
Fig. 1. Temporal factor loadings of the temporal Principant Component Analysis.
Different factor loadings emerged in the time window of interest, respectively at
300 and 400 ms. Below, we report the topographical distributions of the two effects.
200 ms and after 600 ms2. These TFs probably represent the inter-
subject variability in the early ERP components that are not expected
to modulate in the ERP analysis based on our predictions. TF3 (9% of
variance explained) shows its highest loading at 300 ms: this
probably represents the P300 component we expected to be elicited
by the Collocation conditions. We will quantify this in the ERP
analysis as the mean amplitude in the 250–350 ms time interval. TF4
(6.1% of variance explained) has its highest loading at 420 ms: it
probably represents the N400 component that will be quantified in
the ERP analysis as the mean voltage in the 350–450 ms time interval.
3.3. ERP analysis
ERPs were averaged across subjects (N = 36) and conditions
time-locked to the last word of the collocation.
Visual inspection of the grand-averages separately for the
Literal conditions (Fig. 2) and the Figurative ones (Fig. 3) showed a
similar positive peak around 300 ms for the Collocations compared
to their Substitution that is mainly evident in the posterior
electrodes. We quantified this effect as the mean amplitude value
for each condition in the 250–350 ms time window. This P300 peak
at P4 shows the same amplitude as the P200 component.
In the N400 time window (350–450 ms) the effect is different
based on the Literality of the string. The Literal collocation showed
a widely distributed suppressed effect that is evident both in the
anterior and in the posterior electrodes compared to the
Substitution (Fig. 2). On the other hand, the Figurative collocation
elicited a suppressed N400 effect only in the posterior electrodes,
while in the anterior electrodes the component has similar
amplitude in the two conditions (see Fz in Fig. 3).
3.3.1. The P300 effect (250–350 ms)
We performed two separate ANOVAs: one for the Midline
electrodes and another for the Lateralized clusters of electrodes.
2
Further TFs that explained less variance (less than 3.2%) had their highest
loadings either in the 100–200 ms interval or in the 700–800 ms interval. In these
time windows we did not find any ERP effects across conditions, probably because
these TFs represent across-subjects variability in the exogenous ERP components.
No further TFs showed highest loading in the critical 250–450 ms time interval.
182 N. Molinaro, M. Carreiras / Biological Psychology 83 (2010) 176–190

Fig. 2. Grand-averaged ERPs time-locked to the word in final position of Literal collocations (Collocation) and by the replacing word (Substitution) for nine representative
electrodes. Vertical lines at 250, 350 and 450 ms indicate the time windows of interest for our analysis. Negative values are plotted up. The P300 and the N400 peaks are indicated.

The ANOVA we performed for the Midline electrodes in this time Expectancy factor interacted with both the Electrode (F(2,70) =
window showed only a main effect of Expectancy (F(1,35) = 27.297, 6.259, p < 0.05; 95% CI: 8.26) and the Literality (F(1,35) = 5.324,
p < 0.001; 95% Confidence Interval: 8.52) and there was no p < 0.05; 95% CI: 8.45) factor. Post-hoc comparisons (FDR
interaction with the Literality (F(1,35) = 2.012, p > 0,1; 95% CI: 7.9). corrected) showed that the effect was distributed across the three
The Lateralized ANOVA also showed a robust effect of Expectancy Midline electrodes for the Literal manipulation (Fz: t(35) = 3.456,
(F(1,35) = 18.936, p < 0.001; 95% CI: 10.12). In addition, the p < 0.01; Cz: t(35) = 4.83, p < 0.01; Pz: t(35) = 5.379, p < 0.01),
Expectancy factor interacted with the Longitude factor while it emerged only in the parietal electrode for the Figurative
(F(2,70) = 8.117, p < 0.01; 95% CI: 8.12). These two factors then manipulation (Pz: t(35) = 2.283, p < 0.05).
showed a three-way interaction with the Hemisphere factor The ANOVA in the Lateralized clusters revealed main effects of
(F(2,70) = 8.154, p < 0.001; 95% CI: 1.71). Again no interaction Expectancy (F(1,35) = 12.77, p < 0.01; 95% CI: 11.93) and Literality
emerged between Literality and Expectancy (F(1,35) = 2.437, (F(1,35) = 4.734, p < 0.05; 95% CI: 10.6). The Expectancy
p > 0.1; 95% CI: 8.28). Post-hoc analysis (probability values FDR (F(2,70) = 7.666, p < 0.01; 95% CI: 8.58) and the Literality factor
corrected) for each cluster of electrodes separately for Literal and (F(2,70) = 3.92, p < 0.05; 95% CI: 9.22) interacted with the Longitude
Figurative conditions revealed a posterior distribution of the effect factor. More interestingly, Expectancy and Literality interacted
for both the Literal (LP: t(35) = 5.656, p < 0.01; RP: t(35) = 6.108, (F(1,35) = 2.985, p < 0.05; 95% CI: 7.94). Post-hoc comparisons,
p < 0.01; RC: t(35) = 5.794, p < 0.05) and the Figurative (LP: using the FDR correction, showed that while the effect was
t(35) = 2.537, p < 0.05; RP: t(35) = 2.322, p < 0.05) conditions
(Fig. 4). These analyses confirm that the peak of the effect in this Table 1
time window is in the posterior area of the scalp, as also suggested by Statistical analysis in the 250–350 ms time window on electrode P4, that showed
the distribution of TF3 in the tPCA analysis. A dedicated analysis of the peak of activity for Temporal Factor 3.
electrode P4 (in Table 1) confirms the findings emerging in the ANOVA Factors (d.f.) F MSE CI (mV)
previous overall analysis.
Literality (1,35) 1.572 ns 4.074 5.65
Expectancy (1,35) 20.929*** 3.389 5.16
3.3.2. The N400 effect (350–450 ms) Literality  Expectancy (2,70) 2.013 ns 1.982 3.94
In this time window the grand-averaged ERPs (Figs. 2 and 3) Post-hoc comparisons
showed a qualitatively distinct pattern based on the literality of the
Literality (d.f.) t Expectancy (d.f.) t
string.
In the Midline analysis we found a main effect of Expectancy Expected (35) 0.978 ns Literal (35) 6.394***
(F(1,35) = 14.015, p < 0.001; 95% CI: 10.49), and of Literality Unexpected (35) 0.519 ns Figurative (35) 2.571**

(F(1,35) = 5.331, p < 0.05; 95% CI: 10.02). In addition, the ns: not significant; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
 N. Molinaro, M. Carreiras / Biological Psychology 83 (2010) 176–190 183

Fig. 3. Grand-averaged ERPs time-locked to the word in final position of Figurative collocations (Collocation) and by the replacing word (Substitution) for nine representative
electrodes. Vertical lines at 250, 350 and 450 ms indicate the time windows of interest for our analysis. Negative values are plotted up. The P300 and the N400 peaks are
indicated.

significant only in the right-posterior cluster for the Figurative Figurative) and Expectancy (two levels: Collocation vs. Substitu-
manipulation (RP: t(35) = 2.471, p < 0.05), it was distributed all over tion). We ran this analysis since we expected to find a critical
the scalp for the Literal manipulation (LP: t(35) = 4.369, p < 0.01; RP: interaction with Window (early vs. late time window) that would
t(35) = 5.565, p < 0.01; LC: t(35) = 4.229, p < 0.01; RC: t(35) = 5.218, suggest differential computations for the two time windows. The
p < 0.01; RA: t(35) = 2.917, p < 0.05). This is evident in Fig. 4. In ANOVA showed main effects of Window (F(1,35) = 23.642,
addition, since the main difference between the Literal and the p < 0.001; 95% CI: 10.89), Electrode (F(2,70) = 14.521, p < 0.001;
Figurative manipulation emerged in the frontal electrodes (as also 95% CI: 15.13), Literality (F(1,35) = 4.09, p < 0.05; 95% CI: 13.14)
evident from the distribution of TF4 in the tPCA), we ran the and Expectancy (F(1,35) = 22.187, p < 0.001; 95% CI: 12.52). In
dedicated analysis on Fz (Table 2) that confirms the effects emerging addition, the following double interactions emerged: Electrode by
in the overall analysis. Expectancy (F(2,70) = 3.835, p < 0.05; 95% CI: 11.19) and Literality
by Expectancy (F(1,35) = 5.89, p < 0.05; 95% CI: 10.16). Critically,
3.3.3. Cross-windows analysis the Window factor interacted with Electrode and Expectancy
Finally, we ran a four-way ANOVA in the Midline electrodes (F(2,70) = 4.596, p < 0.05; 95% CI: 3.29), but, more interestingly,
with the Window factor (two levels: 250–350 ms and 350– the quadruple interaction among all factors considered in this last
450 ms) in addition to the factors used in the previous analysis: analysis emerged (F(2,70) = 3.976, p < 0.05; 95% CI: 3.59). This last
Electrode (three levels: Fz, Cz, Pz), Literality (two levels: Literal vs. interaction is probably due to the fact that there is no difference
between Figurative Collocation and Figurative Substitution in the
Table 2 frontal electrode in the N400 time window (Fig. 5): Fig. 5 shows
Statistical analysis in the 350–450 ms time window on the electrode Fz, that that the experimental manipulation for the Literal collocations
showed the peak of activity for Temporal Factor 4. elicits a larger amplitude difference in the N400 time window
ANOVA Factors (d.f.) F MSE CI (mV) compared to the Figurative ones.
However, while in the P300 time window this difference is not
Literality (1,35) 5.915* 5.696 6.69
Expectancy (1,35) 5.094* 5.113 6.33 significant (no interaction between Expectancy and Literality in
Literality  Expectancy (2,70) 6.356* 4.085 5.66 the 250–350 ms time window), in the N400 time window the
Post-hoc comparisons
difference between the Literal and the Figurative collocations
slightly increases from the posterior to the anterior electrodes.
Literality (d.f.) t Expectancy (d.f.) t

Expected (35) 2.116* Literal (35) 4.687*** 3.3.4. Time-course analysis

Unexpected (35) 0.698 ns Figurative (35) 1.239 ns The differential influence of Expectancy and Literality in two
ns: not significant; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. subsequent time windows was further evaluated in the analysis
184 N. Molinaro, M. Carreiras / Biological Psychology 83 (2010) 176–190
Fig. 4. Topographical scalp maps of the raw ERP effects in the two time windows of interest (250–350 ms and 350–450 ms) calculated for each experimental condition.
we performed for small time windows (20 ms each) across the
whole epoch.
We ran a two-way ANOVA for each Midline electrode crossing
the factors Expectancy and Literality. In Fig. 6, the time window
between 260 and 340 shows only a main effect of Expectancy. On
the other hand, Literality starts to be significant only around
340 ms, interacting with the Expectancy factor in modulating the
ERPs around 400 ms.
4. Discussion
The present study was designed to examine linguistic effects
related to a hypothesized early positive component overlapping
with the N400 during sentence processing. In the results we found
evidence that the two ERP effects are differently affected by the
semantic properties of the collocation. As evident in Fig. 5, while
the earlier interval was only sensitive to the contextual expectancy
for the critical word, the later interval was also sensitive to the
enriched semantic properties of the whole collocation (literality),
thus showing separable ERP effects in a time window classically
related only to N400 modulations. We defined the components
emerging in these two time windows as P300 and N400. However,
a traditional view of the N400 might try to explain these results by
saying that N400 effects span 250–500 ms in duration, but that
N400 effects of expectancy are greater in magnitude than N400
effects of literality, and for this reason will reach significance
earlier. Roughly speaking, this is the main finding of the paper, i.e.
that different sub-components could modulate the ERP between
250 and 500 ms. However, we have adopted the P300/N400
distinction for two main reasons: (i) some researchers state that
the peak of the N400 component is not modulated in latency for
the processing of open-class words (Kutas et al., 2006). This
assumption presupposes that the cloze-probability and the
literality manipulations should overlap in affecting the ERPs
across the whole 250–450 ms time interval. (ii) We distinguish
these two subcomponents as P300 and N400 in line with previous
findings (Roehm et al., 2007; Vespignani et al., in press) and
according to a more general cognitive perspective on ERPs (Kok,
2001).
In the following paragraphs we will deal separately with the
effects in the early (250–350 ms) and in the late time intervals
(350–450 ms).
4.1. Categorical pre-activation: further evidence on the P300
component during language processing
The linguistic scenarios eliciting the P300 involve idioms (in
Vespignani et al., in press), antinomies (Roehm et al., 2007) and
collocations (this experiment). If a word is pre-activated based on a
(previous) retrieval of a configuration it belongs to, the cognitive
system monitors the match with the incoming stimulus word; this
monitoring process is mirrored in the P300. As discussed by Roehm
et al. (2007) the P300 occurs in the same time range as the N400
because the correct identification of the predicted word does not
require a lexical search (there is a unique prediction that may either be
fulfilled or not) (p. 1272).
 N. Molinaro, M. Carreiras / Biological Psychology 83 (2010) 176–190 185

Fig. 5. Left panel: different waveforms derived from the subtraction of the ERPs elicited by the Collocation minus the Substitution condition for the Literal and the Figurative
manipulation at the Midline electrodes. Right panel: magnitude of the effects at the corresponding electrodes for each condition in the two critical time windows (P300: 250–
350 ms; N400: 350–450 ms).

Basically, a similar explanation could be extended to the so-
called ‘early N400’ effects for unexpected words that have been
reported in studies on binomials (safe and sound; Siyanova et al.,
2009) and negative polarity items (never; Schütte, 2006).
An interesting P300 effect was discussed also in a study on
arithmetical operations with both digits and words (Fisher et al.,
2009): after the presentation of a sentence like ‘Twelve plus three
equals. . .’, the processing of the correct answer (fifteen) triggers a
large P300 effect similar to the one we report. The authors
discussed this as an N300 for the error that was close to the correct
solution (fourteen) but the morphology of the waveforms shows a
positive peak at 300 ms for the correct solution. Also in this case,

Fig. 6. Results of the ANOVA (d.f.: 1, 35) every 20 ms in the Midline electrodes in the whole epoch (0–800 ms). The white color indicates no significant effects; light grey
indicates a significant F-value with a < 0.05; dark grey indicates significance at a < 0.01; black indicates significance at a < 0.001.
186 N. Molinaro, M. Carreiras / Biological Psychology 83 (2010) 176–190
the context pre-activated a specific lexical item, i.e. the answer to
the arithmetical operation. When the cognitive system perceives
the correct answer, a successful match is obtained and the P300 is
elicited.
Thus, this categorical pre-activation of a specific lexical item
could be sparingly associated with high levels of cloze-probability.
In a collocation context, the expectation is very high based on the
previous context. We are not claiming that only collocations elicit
the P300 (as shown by Fisher et al., 2009). On the contrary, high
expectation of a specific word could be obtained also in a non-fixed
string: it is not easy to determine which is the boundary between a
categorical and a non-categorical expectation. In our opinion this
depends on the level of constraint induced by the context. For
example, Kutas and Hillyard (1984) reported ERPs elicited by very
high constraining semantic contexts (mean cloze-probability
0.92): in Fig. 1 in their paper the hi/hi condition elicits a very
reduced negativity, which can be recognized as a positive
deflection peaking around 300 ms; it is possible that this high
level of constraint determines a sort of categorical expectation
similar to the one reported for collocational constraints (see also
Federmeier and Kutas, 1999; Federmeier et al., 2007).
Overall, there is abundant experimental evidence of an
expectation-related positive effect around 300 ms. A feasible
extension of our interpretation in the language domain derives
from a series of ERP studies on masked priming paradigms
(Carreiras et al., 2009; Grainger and Holcomb, 2009; Holcomb and
Grainger, 2006). In these studies, a prime word presented
subliminally before a target word that is identical elicits a
component named P325. This component appears to modulate
categorically on the basis of the word form matching between
prime and target. This P325 is only triggered by an identity
manipulation: any difference (either perceptual, orthographic or
lexical) between prime and target prevents the manifestation of
this component.
This component is similar to the P300 discussed in the present
paper: it is elicited only when there is a complete match between
the target stimulus and its internal pre-activated representation.
In addition, the morphology of the waveform is similar: it peaks
around 300 ms in the parietal electrodes thus preceding the N400
component. The two components (the P325 and the P300) could
probably be interpreted as the manifestation of the same
cognitive process. If this is true, the P300 would represent an
automatic process that monitors the bijection between an
unambiguously activated internal representation and the per-
ceived stimulus word.
Related findings may also be relevant in work by Connolly and
colleagues (Connolly and Phillips, 1994; Newman and Connolly,
2004): these authors have argued for the existence of a component
(Phonological Mismatch Negativity) in about the same time
window as the P300 we reported (that they dissociate from the
N400 component), which is more negative when a word
mismatches with phonological/orthographic expectations – de-
veloped in a semantically high-constraining context – than when it
matches; this relative directionality is the same as the P300 effects
reported here (less positive/more negative for mismatches).
However, some caution is advised when comparing these two
effects since (i) the P300 has a posterior distribution, while the
effect reported by Connolly and colleagues has a broad distribution
over the scalp and (ii) no positive deflection is evident around
300 ms in those studies, probably because there is no complete
match between the internally expected representation and the
external stimulus. In addition, cloze-probability ratings are not
reported by these authors (the level of expectation for the target
word cannot then be evaluated in this discussion). Nonetheless, the
finding of an early time window (earlier than the N400) sensitive to
the matching of the surface properties of an internally pre-activated
stimulus is in line with our results and could explain the lack of
sensitivity of the P300 component to the literality of the string.
We did not find any effects of the literality of the collocation in
the P300 interval, thus supporting the claim that this component
reflects a matching process that is not sensitive to meaning
manipulations. This is an interesting finding since this ERP time
window (250–350 ms) is often included in analyses aimed at
quantifying the N400 component. Future research in the field
should be careful in discussing N400 modulations: even if it is true
that the N400 could have its onset as early as 200 ms (Kutas et al.,
2006), it could be that the superficial ERP difference evident in the
N400 time window is due to overlapping ERP effects (see Kok,
2001). We are not saying that if an effect is encountered in the 250–
350 ms time interval, it could immediately be interpreted as a P300
effect separable from the N400; on the contrary, we have shown
that specific empirical manipulations could elicit concurring P300
and N400 effects.
4.2. Additional semantic processing induced by figurative language:
The anterior N400 modulation
In the N400 time window we found evidence of additional
semantic processing due to the figurative meaning of the string, as
indexed by the enhanced negativity for the expected completion of
a figurative collocation compared to the literal one. As evident in
Fig. 5, the Figurative collocation condition is more negative
compared to the Literal collocation in the frontal electrodes only
around 400 ms. The amplitude of the Figurative collocation
condition is similar to the two Substitution conditions, while
the Literal collocation shows a reduced negativity compared to the
other three conditions. The cloze-probability effect, affecting the
N400, is canceled out in the frontal and central electrodes for the
Figurative comparison, while it is preserved for the Literal
comparison.
As suggested by Coulson and Van Petten (2002), this additional
N400 elicited by comprehension of figurative meanings is evidence
of a more general mechanism of integration of ‘distant’ meanings
in semantic memory, called ‘conceptual blending’ (Fauconnier and
Turner, 1998): blending theory proposes that figurative meaning
comprehension does not require specialized processing mechan-
isms, but reflects the working memory cost in searching and
combining meanings from semantic memory. This additional
semantic processing is triggered after the fixed string is recognized
and its configuration retrieved from memory. This conclusion
could not derive from the data collected in the present study since
we did not manipulate the word before the last highly expected
word of the collocation. However, Vespignani et al. (in press)
substituted both the word at which the idiom was recognized and
the following (highly expected) word. While N400 modulation in
the frontal electrodes was evident at the recognition point, this was
not so at the following word: this suggests that an enhanced
negativity was triggered in this later position of the idiom (and
consequently, no effect was evident in the ERPs between idiom and
substitution at the word after the recognition point), probably
because at that position (i.e. after the idiomatic configuration was
retrieved from memory at the recognition point) the figurative
meaning was available and processed.
An interesting consequence of our data is that in the time
window classically considered as reflecting the N400, two time
intervals sensitive to different language properties are discernible
from an electrophysiological perspective. Around 300 ms the
cognitive system would deal with superficial word properties: only
at this time interval (and not before) could the match of the pre-
activated internal representation of the word and the lexical
properties of the perceived stimulus be evaluated (as suggested by
Grainger and Holcomb, 2009). Later on, around 400 ms, the semantic
 N. Molinaro, M. Carreiras / Biological Psychology 83 (2010) 176–190
properties of the stimulus are combined with a more general
semantic frame induced by the context. This working hypothesis
needs further experimental validation in future studies, but it would
confirm MEG studies (for a review Pylkkänen and Marantz, 2003)
that distinguish multiple sources activated in the N400 time
window.
The N400 modulation we report has a central-anterior
distribution, similar to other studies on figurative meaning
processing (Coulson and Kutas, 2001; Coulson and Van Petten,
2002; Ferretti et al., 2007). This effect is not evident in the parietal
electrodes (Fig. 5). One possible explanation is that the posterior
P300 effect elicited by collocations also lasts into the following
time window, overwhelming possible N400 modulations. The
posterior portion of the N400 could be more related to the search in
semantic memory for a specific item. This search could be strongly
facilitated by the context: if a word is already available in working
memory, since it has been retrieved together with the configura-
tion of the collocation (eliciting a P300), there is no need for further
search so that no further ERP modulation is evident. In this frame it
could be that the posteriorly distributed P300 and N400 represent
two distinct stages of the word recognition mechanism that is
differently affected by qualitatively distinct contextual predic-
tions. Further research to test this hypothesis is needed.
Nonetheless, our study was aimed at testing the functional
dissociation between two partially overlapping effects, the P300
and the N400, that have been suggested to reflect distinct
processing mechanisms in the time window that was classically
considered in the language processing literature as reflecting only
the N400 modulation (Roehm et al., 2007; Vespignani et al., in
press). Here we bring evidence for at least two distinct processing
mechanisms: an earlier one (the P300) determined by high
expectation of a specific lexical item and a later one (the N400)
more involved in semantic processing routines.
5. Conclusions
In the present study we focus on the processing of multi-word
units in order to evaluate the reliability of the P300, a component
that is increasingly reported in recent language comprehension
studies. This component appears to be functionally different from
the N400: in many studies it has an earlier focus than the N400
elicited by semantically anomalous words (Fisher et al., 2009;
Kutas and Hillyard, 1984; Roehm et al., 2007; Siyanova et al.,
2009). In addition, in the present study the ERPs between 250 and
350 ms were not sensitive to the literality of the string, showing
that there is no increased semantic processing involved at this
stage. In contrast, a latter temporal interval (350–450 ms) showed
sensitivity to enriched semantics.
A similar dissociation has been already described in the ERP
literature modeling attention mechanisms. In the dual categorization
processing model, Kok (2001) claimed that the matching of an
external stimulus to an internal representation might be based on
the interplay of two independent mechanisms: a categorical
matching mechanism whose electrophysiological correlate corre-
sponds to the P300 and a mechanism of search in working memory
associated with a slow negative wave with similar latencies. This last
component resembles the N400 consistently reported for semantic
manipulation (see also Vespignani et al., in press). As shown in the
present paper, this dissociation could be extended in the language
comprehension domain to what concerns specific linguistic scenari-
os that are defined in the linguistic literature by the term collocation.
Acknowledgments
This research was partially supported by grants from the
Spanish Ministry of Education and Science SEJ2006-09238 and
187
CONSOLIDER-INGENIO 2010 {CSD2008-00048}. NM is partially
supported by a ‘Juan de la Cierva’ grant from the same Ministry.
Appendix A. List of stimulus sentences used in the present
experiment
Literal collocations
1. Julián debió hacer la tarea antes que nada/esto para que no se
olvidara.
2. Decir que es listo ya es mucho decir/contar porque no es un
genio.
3. Laura viene de vacaciones y ni que decir tiene/quiero que se
quedará aquı́.
4. La tarde continúa con toda normalidad/regularidad tras los
atentados.
5. Nosotros trabajaremos la colección cada cosa por su lado/
sitio para no liarnos.
6. La productora firma el contrato en este mismo instante/
momento con el sindicato.
7. Fermı́n para llegar a tiempo caminó a paso largo/amplio
hasta la escuela.
8. Ella no lo hizo adrede sin ninguna duda/sospecha, sino que
fue un accidente.
9. Clara se compró el coche de segunda mano/vez porque es
más barato.
10. El consejo del médico es de sentido común/obvio para todos.
11. Ahora se puede opinar libremente pero en aquel entonces/
momento estaba prohibido.
12. Luisa enfermó por salir en mangas de camisa/blusa al colegio
en enero.
13. Pedro leyó el libro del principio al fin/cabo en menos de dos
dı́as.
14. Julián no ha estudiado ni lo más mı́nimo/poco en este fin de
semana.
15. Alicia no robó tu cartera, todo lo contrario/opuesto, la guardó
para ponerla a salvo.
16. El bandido acorraló al joven a punta de pistola/navaja en el
callejón.
17. Cecilia les chillaba a más no poder/querer hasta que la
soltaron.
18. El pastel se repartió en partes iguales/justas para los niños.
19. Hoy amaneció el dı́a a cielo descubierto/limpio en toda
España.
20. Ella tenı́a razón pero por otro lado/canto no debió enfadarse
tanto.
21. El pájaro voló a ras del suelo/agua hasta que aterrizó.
22. Sergio puede caminar con la frente bien alta/erguida por su
empresa.
23. Los albañiles no puedes acabar de hoy para mañana/ayer la
construcción del edificio.
24. Susana salió en televisión a cara descubierta/pixelada ayer
tarde.
25. Ella no sabe inglés ya que por aquel entonces/tiempo se
enseñaba francés.
26. Antonio debió llegar antes pero si bien se mira/ve no tiene
culpa del tráfico.
27. Tienes que comportarte aquı́ como es debido/adecuado o no
saldrás el sábado.
28. Rosa tuvo un mal dı́a y además de eso/todo estaba cansada.
29. Hoy no hay clase y por si fuera poco/raro hace buen tiempo.
30. El hombre se encontraba entre la vida y la muerte/fin pero
consiguió reanimarse.
31. La hipoteca se pagará a plazo fijo/continuo durante diez
años.
188 N. Molinaro, M. Carreiras / Biological Psychology 83 (2010) 176–190
32. El comisario confirmó la detención en pocas palabras/frases
ante la prensa.
33. Ana no vendrá a casa en modo alguno/posible mientras no
pide perdón.
34. Pablo no irá a la escuela bajo ningún concepto/motivo
teniendo tanta fiebre.
35. No voy a perdonarle sea cual fuere/diga el motivo de su retraso.
36. Luis quiere aprobar de una manera o de otra/distinta el
dichoso examen.
37. Tú conseguirás el trabajo como dos y dos son cuatro/
números porque has estudiado mucho.
38. Ella terminó su tarea a pesar de todo/total y se fue.
39. El mono saltaba de rama en rama/tejado cuando le grababan
en video.
40. Él imaginó al personaje a su imagen y semejanza/similitud
cuando escribı́a la historia.
41. Cristina come verduras y fruta alguna que otra vez/ocasión
pero no muy a menudo.
42. Rebeca tiene una colección de vı́deos de amplio espectro/
surtido en su casa.
43. Susana sale de noche por norma general/estándar los viernes.
44. Marta estudió a diario y aún con eso/todo suspendió.
45. Juan supo sus objetivos a corto plazo/tiempo cuando empezó
el curso.
46. Felipe aprobará el examen sin duda alguna/cabe por lo
mucho que estudio.
47. La niña confesó en honor a la verdad/realidad haber roto el
plato.
48. Tenemos galletas en casa para dar y tomar/coger durante
más de un mes.
49. Hoy terminaré el informe aunque sólo sea/quiera por acabar
y no verlo más.
50. Parecı́a que empezarı́a a llover de un momento a otro/demás
pero no fue ası́.
51. Carmen anunció su enlace a voz en grito/clamor en su
trabajo.
52. Marina cocina el pescado a fuego lento/cálido en su cocina.
53. Yo le compraré algo sea lo que fuere/piense lo que hizo.
54. El triunfo es obra suya aunque en cierto modo/sentido yo
ayudé.
55. Los chicos tuvieron que irse con la música a otra parte/casa
porque molestaban.
56. Estefania pudo levantar 100 kilos como si tal cosa/pluma
varias veces.
Figurative collocations
57. Debieron recoger la casa a contra reloj/sentido cuando vino
una visita.
58. Lloraba de dolor pero ya será menos/poco porque no tenı́a
nada aparentemente.
59. La disputa puso a Roberto entre la espada y la pared/esquina
al tener que decidir.
60. Abusó de su confianza más de la cuenta/norma y ahora están
enfadados.
61. Aún tenı́an a su familiar de cuerpo presente/caliente cuando
llegamos.
62. Los personajes se peleaban a vida o muerte/guerra por el
amor de la princesa.
63. El ser humano es curioso desde que el mundo es mundo/
redondo y ası́ seguirá.
64. La casa de Cecilia estaba como los chorros del oro/agua tras
limpiarla.
65. Sonia se siente aquı́ como Pedro por su casa/piso porque
viene mucho.
66. Se suspendió el concierto de golpe y porrazo/trompazo sin
dar explicaciones.
67. Ella le describió al sospechoso a grandes rasgos/rayas pero
muy segura.
68. El asesino lo hizo con conocimiento de causa/razón porque
la ley es clara.
69. Tuvieron que luchar contra viento y marea/frı́o para
conseguir estar juntos.
70. El chico corrió en el partido como alma que lleva el diablo/
demonio sin parar.
71. Ella vivı́a aquı́ conmigo y a las primeras de cambio/duda se
marchó con un amigo.
72. Donde yo vivo tengo todo al alcance de la mano/pierna,
apenas cojo el coche.
73. Susana y Raquel se llevan como el dı́a a la noche/tarde desde
pequeñas.
74. Se entregó a su trabajo en cuerpo y alma/mente durante
mucho tiempo.
75. La boda se celebró a bombo y platillo/tambor, fue una fiesta
increı́ble.
76. Todo se solucionó como por arte de magia/encanto cuando
más falta hacı́a.
77. Este libro es una novela de tres al cuarto/sexto, no la leas.
78. Voy a llevar una chaqueta por si las moscas/cosas porque allı́
a veces refresca.
79. Él podrı́a conducir con los ojos cerrados/tapados el camino
hasta su casa.
80. Él pronunció el nombre del ganador a viva voz/entonación en
la gala de premios.
81. Los niños llegaron a clase en fila india/recta sin hacer ruido.
82. David no consiguió aprobar ni a la de tres/mil el examen de
conducir.
83. No saltaré de un avión por nada del mundo/cielo, ni que se
esté quemando.
84. Sandra sabe cocinar a las mil maravillas/fantası́as y le
encanta hacerlo.
85. En la fiesta habı́an ciento y la madre/abuela de estudiantes y
jóvenes.
86. Isabel se marchó a casa con viento fresco/fuerte tras discutir
con Roberto.
87. El seguro pagó el coche porque a fin de cuentas/todo la culpa
no fue suya.
88. Cerró todas las ventanas a cal y canto/borde por lo que hacı́a
calor.
89. Los periodistas cogieron al polı́tico con el culo al aire/sol en
una conferencia.
90. El chico habló a corazón abierto/cerrado de su vida.
91. Le contó el incidente con pelos y señales/lunares al policı́a.
92. Ricardo y Rosa estuvieron en pie de guerra/lucha toda la
semana.
93. Ella es una mujer de armas tomar/coger desde siempre.
94. Ricardo durmió anoche a pierna suelta/libre hasta bien tarde.
95. Se celebró el cumpleaños por todo lo alto/sonoro el viernes
por la noche.
96. Elena se esforzó por trabajar a base de bien/fuerza para
conseguir el dinero.
97. Ellos subieron a la montaña por cuenta y riesgo/peligro suyo
aun habiendo tormenta.
98. No voy a dejar de dormir ni mucho menos/más por tener que
estudiar.
99. El dinero llegó a casa como caı́do de las nubes/estrellas
cuando más falta hacı́a.
100. El matrimonio me trató a cuerpo de rey/conde mientras
estuve allı́.
101. Ella tiene mucha suerte cada dos por tres/cuatro gana la
loterı́a.
102. Se aprendió la lista a sangre y fuego/hielo para pasar la
prueba.
 N. Molinaro, M. Carreiras / Biological Psychology 83 (2010) 176–190
103. Marcos se leyó el libro de cabo a rabo/fin en menos de dos
dı́as.
104. Marı́a siguió la receta al pie de la letra/grafı́a para hacer el
pavo.
105. El abogado peleó ayer con uñas y dientes/puños en el juicio.
106. Él consiguió el trabajo con el sudor de la frente/mano tras
mucho tiempo.
107. Estaba tan acatarrado que a duras penas/fuerzas podı́a
hablar.
108. Eva tiene los sentimientos a flor de piel/alma y por eso llora
tanto.
109. Pedro gritó la noticia a los cuatro vientos/cielos cuando se
enteró.
110. Delia del susto iba con los ojos fuera de las órbitas/cuencas
durante un buen rato.
111. La carrera debı́a hacerse a la pata coja/sola para ganarla.
112. Julián terminó el trabajo de prisa y corriendo/volando una
hora antes de la entrega.
References
Barber, H., Vergara, M., Carreiras, M., 2004. Syllable-frequency effects in visual word
recognition: evidence from ERPs. Neuroreport 15, 545–548.
Barber, H.A., Kutas, M., 2007. Interplay between computational models and cogni-
tive electrophysiology in visual word recognition. Brain Research Reviews 53,
98–123.
Benjamini, Y., Hochberg, Y., 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical
and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society. Series B (Methodological) 57, 289–300.
Brown, C., Hagoort, P., 1993. The processing nature of the N400: evidence from
masked priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 5, 34–44.
Cacciari, C., 1993. The place of idioms in a literal and metaphorical world. In:
Cacciari, C., Tabossi, P. (Eds.), Idioms. Processing, Structure and Interpretation.
Laurence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 27–55.
Cacciari, C., Tabossi, P., 1988. The comprehension of idioms. Journal of Memory and
Language 27, 668–683.
Carreiras, M., Gillon-Dowens, M., Vergara, M., Perea, M., 2009. Are vowels and
consonants processed differently? ERP evidence with a delayed letter paradigm.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 21, 275–288.
Carreiras, M., Vergara, M., Barber, H., 2005. Early ERP effects of syllabic processing
during visual word recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 17, 1803–
1817.
Connolly, J.F., Phillips, N.A., 1994. Event-related potential components reflect
phonological and semantic processing of the terminal word of spoken sen-
tences. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 6, 256–266.
Coulson, S., Kutas, M., 2001. Getting it: human event-related brain response to jokes
in good and poor comprehenders. Neuroscience Letters 316, 71–74.
Coulson, S., Van Petten, C., 2002. Conceptual integration and metaphor: an event-
related potential study. Memory & Cognition 30, 958–968.
Dambacher, M., Kliegl, R., Hofmann, M., Jacobs, A.M., 2006. Frequency and predict-
ability effects on event-related potentials during reading. Brain Research 1084,
89–103.
De Long, K.A., Urbach, T.P., Kutas, M., 2005. Probabilistic word pre-activation during
language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuro-
science 8, 1117–1121.
Debruille, J.B., 1998. Knowledge inhibition and N400: a study with words that look
like common words. Brain and Language 62, 202–220.
Dien, J., 1998. Addressing misallocation of variance in principal component analysis
of event-related potentials. Brain Topography 11 (1), 43–55.
Dien, J., Khoe, W., Mangun, G.R., 2007. Evaluation of PCA and ICA of simulated ERP:
promax vs. infomax rotations. Human Brain Mapping 28, 742–763.
Dien, J., Frishkoff, G.A., 2005. Introduction to principal components analysis of event
related potentials. In: Handy, T. (Ed.), Event Related Potentials: A Methods
Handbook. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 189–208.
Donchin, E., Coles, M.G.H., 1988. Is the P300 component a manifestation of context-
updating? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 11, 355–372.
Fauconnier, G., Turner, M., 1998. Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Sci-
ence 22, 133–187.
Federmeier, K.D., 2007. Thinking ahead: the role and roots of prediction in language
comprehension. Psychophysiology 44, 491–505.
Federmeier, K.D., Kutas, M., 1999. A rose by any other name: long term memory
structure and sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language 41, 469–
495.
Federmeier, K., Wlotko, E.W., De Ochoa-Dewald, E., Kutas, M., 2007. Multiple effects
of sentential constraint on word processing. Brain Research 1146, 75–84.
Fellbaum, C., 2007. Idioms and Collocations. From Corpus to Electronic Lexical
Resource. Continuum, Bermingham.
189
Ferretti, T.R., Schwint, C.A., Katz, A., 2007. Electrophysiological and behavioral
measures of the influence of literal and figurative contextual constraint on
proverb comprehension. Brain and Language 101, 38–49.
Fisher, K., Bassok, M., Osterhout, L. 2009. The arithmetic incongruency effect: same
processing for different symbolic representations. Poster presented at the 16th
CNS Annual Meeting, San Francisco (CA), March 21–24.
Frishkoff, G.A., 2007. Hemispheric differences in strong versus weak semantic
priming: evidence from event-related brain potentials. Brain and Language
100, 23–43.
Grainger, J., Holcomb, P.J., 2009. Watching the word go by: on the time-course of
component processes in visual word recognition. Language and Linguistics
Compass 3 (1), 128–156.
Greenhouse, S., Geisser, S., 1959. On methods in analysis of profile data. Psycho-
metrika 24, 95–112.
Gross, D., Fischer, U., Miller, G.A., 1989. The organization of adjectival meanings.
Journal of Memory and Language 28, 92–106.
Harman, H.H., 1976. Modern Factor Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Hill, H., Ott, F., Weisbrod, M., 2005. SOA-dependent N400 and P300 semantic
priming effects using pseudowords and a delayed lexical decision. International
Journal of Psychophysiology 56, 209–221.
Hill, H., Strube, M., Roesch-Ely, D., Weisbrod, M., 2002. Automatic vs. controlled
processes in semantic priming – differentiation by event-related potentials.
International Journal of Psychophysiology 44, 197–218.
Holcomb, P.J., 1993. Semantic priming and stimulus degradation: implications for
the role of the N400 in language processing. Psychophysiology 30, 47–61.
Holcomb, P.J., Grainger, J., 2006. On the time-course of visual word recognition: an
ERP investigation using masked repetition priming. Journal of Cognitive Neu-
roscience 18, 1631–1643.
Holcomb, P.J., Grainger, J., O’Rourke, T., 2002. An electrophysiological study of the
effects of orthographic neighborhood size on printed word perception. Journal
of Cognitive Neuroscience 14, 938–950.
Kaiser, J., Tenke, C.E., 2006. Consensus on PCA for ERP data, and sensibility of
unrestricted solutions. Clinical Neurophysiology 117, 695–707.
Kamide, Y., 2008. Anticipatory processes in sentence processing. Language and
Linguistics Compass 2, 647–670.
Kimball, J., 1975. Predictive analysis and over-the-top parsing. In: Kimball, J. (Ed.),
Syntax and semantics, 4. Academic Press, New York, pp. 155–179.
Kok, A., 2001. On the utility of P3 amplitude as a measure of processing capacity.
Psychophysiology 38, 557–577.
Konopcka, A.E., Bock, K., 2009. Lexical or syntactic control of sentence formulation?
Structural generalizations from idiom production. Cognitive Psychology 58,
68–101.
Kutas, M., Hillyard, S.A., 1980. Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect
semantic incongruity. Science 207, 203–205.
Kutas, M., Hillyard, S.A., 1984. Brain potentials during reading reflect word expec-
tancy and semantic association. Nature 307, 161–163.
Kutas, M., Iragui, V., 1998. The N400 in a semantic categorization task across six
decades. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 108, 456–
471.
Kutas, M., Van Petten, C., Kluender, R., 2006. Psycholinguistic electrified II: 1994–
2005. In: Traxler, M., Gernsbacher, M.A. (Eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics,
second ed. Elsevier, New York, pp. 659–724.
Jackendoff, R., 1995. The boundaries of the lexicon. In: Everaert, M., van den Linden,
E., Schenk, A., Schreuder, R. (Eds.), Idioms: Structural and Psychological Per-
spectives. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 133–166.
Lau, E.F., Phillips, C., Poeppel, D., 2008. A cortical network for semantics: (de)con-
structing the N400. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 9, 920–933.
Martı́, M.A., Taulé, M., 2007. CESS-ECE: corpus anotados del español y catalán, in
Arena Romanı́stica. A journal of Corpus and text linguistics Romance studies, 1,
Bergen (Norway).
Molinaro, N., Conrad, M., Barber, H.A., Carreiras, M., On the functional
nature of the N400: contrasting effects related to visual word recognition
and contextual semantic integration, Cognitive Neuroscience, doi:10.1080/
17588920903373952, in press.
Newman, R.L., Connolly, J.F., 2004. Determining the role of phonology in silent
reading using event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Brain Research 21, 94–
105.
Picton, T.W., 1993. The P300 wave of the human event-related potentials. Journal of
Clinical Neurophysiology 9, 456–479.
Pollio, H., Barlow, J., Fine, H., Pollio, M., 1977. Metaphor and the Poetics of Growth:
Figurative Language in Psychology, Psychotherapy and Education. Erlbaum,
Hillsdale, NJ.
Pylkkänen, L., Marantz, A., 2003. Tracking the time-course of word recognition with
MEG. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7, 187–189.
Pynte, J., Besson, M., Robichon, F., Poli, J., 1996. The time-course of metaphor
interpretation: an ERP study. Brain and Language 55, 293–316.
Roehm, D., Bornkessel-Schlewiesky, I., Roesler, F., Schlewiesky, M., 2007. To predict
or not to predict: influences of task and strategy on the processing of semantic
relations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 19, 1259–1274.
Rösler, F., Manzey, D., 1981. Principal components and Varimax-rotated compo-
nents in event-related potential research: some remarks on their interpretation.
Biological Psychology 13, 3–26.
Schütte, J., 2006. On the processing of negative polarity constructions:
when the licensor makes the difference. In: Proceedings of the First Central
European Student Conference in Linguistics, Budapest (Hungary), May 24–
26.
190 N. Molinaro, M. Carreiras / Biological Psychology 83 (2010) 176–190
Sebastiàn-Gallés, N., Martı̀, A., Carreiras, M., Cuetos, F., 2000. LEXESP: Una base de
datos informatizada del español. Barcelona, Spain, Ed. Universitat de Barcelona.
Sinclair, J.M.C.H., 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Siyanova, A., Conklin, K, Van Heuven, W.J.B., 2009. An ERP investigation of the
processing of binomial expressions in sentence contexts: safe and sound vs.
sound and safe. Poster presented at the 22nd Annual CUNY Conference on
Human Sentence Processing, Davis (CA), March 26–28.
Sotillo, M., Carretie, L., Hinojosa, J.A., Tapia, M., Mercado, F., Lopez-Martin, S., Albert,
J., 2005. Neural activity associated with metaphor comprehension: spatial
analysis. Neuroscience Letters 313, 5–9.
Sprenger, S.A., Levelt, W.J., Kempen, G., 2006. Lexical access during the production of
idiomatic phrases. Journal of Memory and Language 54, 161–184.
Staub, A., Clifton Jr., C., 2006. Syntactic prediction in language comprehension:
evidence from either. . . or. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory and Cognition 32, 425–436.
Taylor, W.L., 1953. Cloze procedure: a new tool for measuring readability. Journal-
ism Quarterly 30, 415–433.
Van Berkum, J.J.A., 2008. Understanding sentence in context: what brain waves can
tell us. Current Directions in Psychological Science 17, 376–380.
Van Berkum, J.J.A., Brown, C.M., Zwitserlood, P., Koojiman, V., Hagoort, P., 2005.
Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: evidence from ERPs and reading
times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 31,
443–467.
Van Petten, C., Kutas, M., 1990. Interactions between sentence context and word
frequency in event-related brain potentials. Memory and Cognition 18, 380–393.
Verleger, R., 1988. Event-related potentials and cognition: a critique of the context-
updating hypothesis and an alternative interpretation of the P300. Behavioral
and Brain Sciences 11, 343–427.
Vespignani, F., Canal, P., Molinaro, N., Fonda, S., Cacciari, C. Predictive mechanisms
in idiom comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, doi:10.1162/
jocn.2009.21293, in press.
Wicha, N.Y., Moreno, E.M., Kutas, M., 2004. Anticipating words and their gender: an
event-related brain potential study of semantic integration, gender expectancy,
and gender agreement in Spanish sentence reading. Journal of Cognitive Neu-
roscience 16, 1272–1288.