Thus, if the (only) observed positivity is a P3, the question then becomes: where is the P600? If the present late positivity is a P3, the lack of a distinct P600 entails that there is no P600 as a general, necessary consequence

of syntactic processing, or at the very least that it depends on specific (as of yet unspecified) aspects of the task. In either case, a model of the P600 as natural correlate of automatic syntactic processing must be amended. In addition, the assumption that the present Selleck NVP-BKM120 paradigm only elicited a P3 but no P600 is at odds with results demonstrating that the P600, in fact, has a stronger propensity to appear in task-relevant contexts than when task relevance and syntactic manipulation status do not coincide. As noted in the introduction section, the P600

– following both syntactic and semantic anomalies – is enhanced Alpelisib by more explicit tasks (Hahne and Friederici, 2002, Haupt et al., 2008, Osterhout et al., 1996 and Osterhout et al., 2002). It is greatly attenuated and often absent (Batterink and Neville, 2013 and Hasting and Kotz, 2008; Royle, Drury, & Steinhauer, 2013) when subjects do not consciously attend to grammatical violations – in contrast to syntax-sensitive negativities, which often remain rather unaffected by task (e.g. Haupt et al., 2008). It also appears highly unlikely that the use of an immediate-response paradigm led to a higher likelihood for a P3 in this Levetiracetam study as opposed to previous sentence processing experiments employing similar violation paradigms and delayed reaction. It has been established that the P3 follows the event affording decision making and response selection, not response execution. A direct comparison of immediate and delayed response tasks (e.g. Grent-‘t-Jong et al., 2011 and Praamstra et al., 1994) reveals that a P3 is always seen on the critical

stimulus itself, whether it is immediately followed by a response or not. In other words: the P3 does not “wait for the ‘go’ signal”. In accordance with these findings from non-linguistic paradigms, a P3 is expected following task-relevant violations in typical (delayed-response) EEG sentence processing experiments just as for the present immediate-response paradigm. Finally, it may be questioned if passive perception and comprehension is indeed the more “natural” mode of language processing, as opposed to “preparation for situated action” (Barsalou, 1999). In summary, when the present study is considered in light of the full range of existing data, there is no principled reason to assume that the paradigm employed here should have been more susceptible to eliciting a P3 effect than previous violation studies on sentence processing. The fact that the only positivity following the processing of structural information in our study is RT-aligned thus has implications for our understanding of the P600.