Back

The syntax-meter interface in spoken language and music: Same, different, or individually variable?

Harding, E. E.; Sammler, D.; Kotz, S. A.

2023-03-09 neuroscience
10.1101/2023.03.08.531723 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Considerable debate surrounds syntactic processing similarities in language and music. Yet few studies have investigated how syntax interacts with meter considering that metrical regularity varies across domains. Furthermore, there are reports on individual differences in syntactic and metrical structure processing in music and language. Thus, a direct comparison of individual variation in syntax and meter processing across domains is warranted. In a behavioral (Experiment 1) and EEG study (Experiment 2), participants engaged in syntactic processing tasks with sentence- and melody stimuli that were more or less metrically regular, and followed a preferred or non-preferred (but correct) syntactic structure. We further employed a range of cognitive diagnostic tests, parametrically indexed verbal- and musical abilities using a principal component analysis, and correlated cognitive factors with the behavioral and ERP results (Experiment 3). Based on previous results in the language domain, we expected that a regular meter would facilitate the syntactic integration of non-preferred syntax. While syntactic discrimination was better in regular than irregular meter conditions in both domains (Experiment 1), a P600 effect indicated different integration costs during the processing of syntactic complexities in the two domains (Experiment 2). Metrical regularity altered the P600 response to preferred syntax in language while it modulated non-preferred syntax processing in music. Moreover, experimental results yielded within-domain individual differences, and identified continuous metrics of musical ability more beneficial than grouping musicians or non-musicians (Experiment 3). These combined results suggest that the meter-syntax interface differs uniquely in how it forms syntactic preferences in language and music.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Neuropsychologia
77 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.6%
2
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
119 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.2%
3
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.8%
4
The Journal of Neuroscience
928 papers in training set
Top 3%
4.3%
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 28%
4.3%
6
Brain and Language
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
7
Cerebral Cortex
357 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.6%
8
NeuroImage
813 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.6%
50% of probability mass above
9
Psychophysiology
64 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
10
Cognition
44 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.0%
11
Biological Psychology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
12
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 47%
2.3%
13
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
14
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 38%
1.9%
15
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
16
European Journal of Neuroscience
168 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.8%
17
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 15%
1.7%
18
Cortex
102 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.6%
19
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.5%
20
Neurobiology of Language
28 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.2%
21
Developmental Science
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.2%
22
Human Brain Mapping
295 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
23
Imaging Neuroscience
242 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
24
Brain Sciences
52 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
25
Brain Research
35 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
26
Neuroscience
88 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
27
Neurobiology of Learning and Memory
35 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
28
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
29
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 27%
0.7%
30
Cerebral Cortex Communications
36 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%