Aristei, S. 1 , Nehrlich, T. 2 , Knoop, C. 2 , Sommer, W. 1 , Lubrich, O. 2 , Jacobs, A. 2 & Abdel Rahman, R. 1
1 Humbold Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
2 Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Concepts minimally violating word core knowledge, i.e. minimally counterintuitive concepts (MCI), are special cases of semantic violations. These concepts are characterized by a semantic feature belonging to a different category while maintaining all properties of its own category (e.g. smiling trees blossom). MCIs are better remembered than non-violating or bizarre concepts. This mnemonic advantage is assumed to be one of the mechanisms responsible for the cultural success of narratives involving MCIs (e.g. fairy tales). Our study is the first attempt to understand how our neurocognitive system copes with MCIs at first encounter. Two issues were of central interest: first, whether MCIs involve different cognitive processes than other semantic violations; and second, whether emotional context modulates MCI processing. We recorded ERPs during the reading of sentences containing MCIs (e.g. a barren tree smiles), semantic expectancy violations (e.g. a barren tree blossoms), and non-violating concepts (e.g. a barren tree breaks down). Each sentence was preceded by a neutral or an emotionally negative context. MCIs elicited a long lasting N400 effect, and the effect was reduced by the negative emotional context. In contrast, semantic expectancy violations elicited a larger P600 than the other conditions, in absence of N400 effects. Furthermore, the P600 effect was enhanced by the negative emotional rather than the neutral context. Our results suggest that MCIs and semantic violations are differentially processed. MCIs are recognized and processed as semantically anomalous at earlier stages than semantic expectancy violations. Semantic expectancy violations, conversely, appear to be initially processed as semantically coherent (no N400 effect) and only later to be re-analyzed and possibly repaired (P600). Most interesting, context affectivity appears to reduce counterintuition but to make semantic expectancy violations more costly. In conclusion, cognitive processing of MCIs differs from semantic expectancy violations and is differentially modulated by the affective connotation of the context.