in a 100ms interval prior to stimulus onset. Trials in
which the signal exceeded ±150µV where excluded
from the analysis. Trials in which mouse button
press responses were incorrect for non-member and
typical member targets were also omitted, yet
incorrect button press responses for atypical words
were not omitted.
LCMV Beamformer for Single-trial ERP
Detection
The linearly constrained minimum variance (LCMV)
beamformer (van Vliet et. Al 2016) is a
spatiotemporal filter that relies on spatial- and
temporal templates of the ERP collected during a
training session (using a proportion of the dataset for
training). These templates are formed by subtracting
the average EEG recordings of two experimental
paradigms both in time (between 350 and 500ms after
stimulus onset) and space (electrodes). As our experi-
ment involved three possible outcomes (typical, atypi-
cal, and nonmember), we used trials of nonmember
and typical targets to maximize the N400 effect. This
template is optimized two satisfy two criteria: a)
maximal correlation with the actual amplitude of our
component of interest (here N400) and b) minimal
correlation with interfering signals, such as noise or
other ERP components. The template is then applied
to each epoch separately (single trial) and the
beamformer returns a single value, which indicates
the presence of an N400 response for that epoch.
Statistical Analysis
Since we have unbalanced data, a linear mixed effect
model was used with N400 response (the output
resulting of the beamformer, cf. supra) as an indepen-
dent variable, and with the following fixed effects for
several analyses: relatedness (whether or not our
target was a member of the category, irrelevant of
typicality), typicality (labels of the targets divided into
typical, atypical, and nonmembers), and concreteness
(labels of the targets divided based on whether they
are members of the concrete or the abstract category).
Random effects were targets, primes and subjects.
Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA)
was performed on the outcomes of the linear mixed
effect model. A significance level of 5% was adopted
for all analyses.
3 RESULTS
Beamformer Results
Out of the 64 recording channels, we selected a total
of 31 channels. Given that only a percentage of the
data should be used for training our beamformer
template, we needed to choose a proportion of the
data, where randomly chosen trials would still show
consistent beamformer templates across replications.
When we used 60 percent of the data (which is, 30%
of the typical and unrelated trials respectively), we
achieved an overall stability in both the spatial and
temporal templates. Note that we do not use trials
with atypical targets to develop the beamformer,
because they are expected to be in between the two
extreme cases of typical and unrelated, but also
because atypical trials in general were less
prominent than typical and unrelated ones. To assure
statistical stability across replications, we formed the
beamformer in 100 iterations and analyzed the mean
and variance for the spatial and temporal templates.
An example of both templates is shown in fig. 1.
Figure 1: Spatial (left) and temporal (right) beamformer
templates.
The first hypothesis we tested was on the general
relatedness (target versus nontarget). A one-way
ANOVA of general relatedness (including typical
and atypical members) against unrelated members
revealed a significant difference (p=0.00175,
F=5.6743). When looking for effects of typicality
versus atypicality versus nonmember, a significant
difference of (p=0.0008435, F=4.8172) was found,
both when all groups were included, but also when
the group ‘colour’ was excluded from the analysis
(p=0.004236, F=3.1828). Further pairwise
comparison of the groups revealed a significant
difference between typical versus atypical exemplars
of the categories (p= 0.002725, F=3.7217). An
ANOVA analysis of the effect of concreteness
versus abstractness on the N400 amplitude was also
significant (p=0.002589, F=3.0919). Note that this
result also holds when we eliminate the group
‘colour’ from the analysis (p=0.0045245, F=2.5084),
which shows that our results apply to both cases of
using only abstract unimaginable groups, and when
the abstract category includes both imaginable and
unimaginable words.