@article{MetznervonderMalsburgVasishthetal.2015,
  author    = {Metzner, Paul-Philipp and von der Malsburg, Titus Raban and Vasishth, Shravan and R{\"o}sler, Frank},
  title     = {Brain Responses to World Knowledge Violations: A Comparison of Stimulus- and Fixation-triggered Event-related Potentials and Neural Oscillations},
  series = {Journal of cognitive neuroscience},
  volume    = {27},
  journal   = {Journal of cognitive neuroscience},
  number    = {5},
  publisher = {MIT Press},
  address   = {Cambridge},
  issn      = {0898-929X},
  doi       = {10.1162/jocn_a_00731},
  pages     = {1017 -- 1028},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {Recent research has shown that brain potentials time-locked to fixations in natural reading can be similar to brain potentials recorded during rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP). We attempted two replications of Hagoort, Hald, Bastiaansen, and Petersson [Hagoort, P., Hald, L., Bastiaansen, M., \& Petersson, K. M. Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science, 304, 438-441, 2004] to determine whether this correspondence also holds for oscillatory brain responses. Hagoort et al. reported an N400 effect and synchronization in the theta and gamma range following world knowledge violations. Our first experiment (n = 32) used RSVP and replicated both the N400 effect in the ERPs and the power increase in the theta range in the time-frequency domain. In the second experiment (n = 49), participants read the same materials freely while their eye movements and their EEG were monitored. First fixation durations, gaze durations, and regression rates were increased, and the ERP showed an N400 effect. An analysis of time-frequency representations showed synchronization in the delta range (1-3 Hz) and desynchronization in the upper alpha range (11-13 Hz) but no theta or gamma effects. The results suggest that oscillatory EEG changes elicited by world knowledge violations are different in natural reading and RSVP. This may reflect differences in how representations are constructed and retrieved from memory in the two presentation modes.},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Metzner2015,
  author    = {Metzner, Paul-Philipp},
  title     = {Eye movements and brain responses in natural reading},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-82806},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {xv, 160},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {Intuitively, it is clear that neural processes and eye movements in reading are closely connected, but only few studies have investigated both signals simultaneously. Instead, the usual approach is to record them in separate experiments and to subsequently consolidate the results. However, studies using this approach have shown that it is feasible to coregister eye movements and EEG in natural reading and contributed greatly to the understanding of oculomotor processes in reading. The present thesis builds upon that work, assessing to what extent coregistration can be helpful for sentence processing research. In the first study, we explore how well coregistration is suited to study subtle effects common to psycholinguistic experiments by investigating the effect of distance on dependency resolution. The results demonstrate that researchers must improve the signal-to-noise ratio to uncover more subdued effects in coregistration. In the second study, we compare oscillatory responses in different presentation modes. Using robust effects from world knowledge violations, we show that the generation and retrieval of memory traces may differ between natural reading and word-by-word presentation. In the third study, we bridge the gap between our knowledge of behavioral and neural responses to integration difficulties in reading by analyzing the EEG in the context of regressive saccades. We find the P600, a neural indicator of recovery processes, when readers make a regressive saccade in response to integration difficulties. The results in the present thesis demonstrate that coregistration can be a useful tool for the study of sentence processing. However, they also show that it may not be suitable for some questions, especially if they involve subtle effects.},
  language  = {en}
}