Significant three-way interactions were resolved by computing ANOVAs on the next level. Whenever the ANOVA revealed a significant interaction of CONTEXT TYPE or WORD ORDER with ROI, paired t-tests were calculated to report the topographical distribution of the effect. As our study is concerned with the effect of CONTEXT TYPE
within each WORD ORDER, a significant interaction of both factors would be resolved by WORD ORDER. With this check details procedure, we ensure to compare ERPs of identical DPs with regard to morphosyntax and thematic role. For presentation purposes only, the grand average ERPs displayed in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 were 7 Hz low-pass filtered (Butterworth zero phase filter: high cutoff: 7 Hz; slope: 12 dB/oct). For statistical data analysis of the sentence-picture-verification task, logit mixed models for analysis of the binary distributed response accuracy data (correct vs. incorrect answers) were calculated.
This statistical analysis followed the same procedure as described in Experiment 1. Fig. 2 displays the grand average ERPs at selected electrode positions of the respective selleck ROIs time-locked to the onset of DP1. For complete statistical details of the ERP analysis at DP1 see Table 3. Fig. 3 shows the grand average ERPs of one selected exemplary electrode time-locked to the onset of the verb and DP2, respectively. For ERPs in the time window 100–300 ms post onset DP1, the ANOVA including the factors CONTEXT TYPE (TOPIC vs. NEUTRAL) and WORD ORDER (SO vs. OS) and ROI revealed a significant main effect of CONTEXT TYPE [F(1, 18) = 5.48, p ⩽ .05]: If DP1 was preceded by the topic context, the positivity around 200 ms was reduced (compared to the neutral context). The ANOVA in the 300–500 ms time window yielded ROS1 neither any statistically significant main effects nor interactions [p > .1]. For the 500–700 ms time window, the ANOVA revealed a significant interaction of WORD ORDER × ROI [F(8, 144) = 4.14, p ⩽ .01] as well as WORD
ORDER × CONTEXT TYPE × ROI [F(8, 144) = 4.15, p ⩽ .05]. 3 Separate post hoc analyses to resolve the three-way interaction of WORD ORDER × CONTEXT TYPE × ROI by WORD ORDER revealed a significant interaction of CONTEXT TYPE × ROI in sentences with OS order [F(8, 144) = 2.99, p ⩽ .05] (see Fig. 2, lower panel). Follow-up t-tests showed a significantly reduced positivity from 500 to 700 ms for OS sentences preceded by the topic context relative to the neutral context in the right-frontal and frontal-midline ROI [t(18) = −2.53/−2.28, p ⩽ .05]. For SO sentences, the post hoc ANOVA did not show any significant differences in the ERPs with regard to the factor CONTEXT TYPE [p > .1] (see Fig. 2, upper panel). The ERPs in the three different time windows 100–300 ms, 300–500 ms and 500–700 ms post verb onset neither revealed any statistically significant main effects nor interactions with regard to the factors CONTEXT TYPE, WORD ORDER and/or ROI [p > .1].