ADVANCES COURSE OF PSYCHO-/NEUROLINGUSITICS - Event

Kaan 2007EEG/ERP

An Exercise about MaterialsBasque Bilinguals and ERPs

Kepa Erdozia and Itziar Laka

ADVANCES COURSE OFPSYCHO-/NEUROLINGUSITICS

Event Related Brain Potentials

Master in Linguistics 2009-2010

03/02/2010

Master in Linguistics 2009-2010 ADVANCES COURSE OF PSYCHO-/NEUROLINGUSITICS

Kaan 2007EEG/ERP


Contents

1 Kaan 2007

2 EEG/ERPSome issuesFrom signal to componentsPros and ConsLinguistic Components

3 An Exercise about Materials

4 Basque Bilinguals and ERPsZawiszewski 2007Diaz et al.


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP


ERPs (Kaan 2007)

Kaan, Edith. 2007.Event-Related Potentials and Language

Processing: A Brief Overview.Language and Linguistic Compass 1/6: 571-591


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP


ERPs (Kaan 2007)

Language processing occurs extremely fast.

Language processing is extremely accurate.For a more exhaust overview of language processingrelated ERP components see Kutas et al. 2006 inGernsbacher and Traxler’s Handbook of PsycholinguisticsElseiver.For ERP technical and methodological aspects see Luck,2005. An introduction to the event-related potentialtechnique. MIT Press.

ERPs are good solution recording the timing of languageprocessing.


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP


ERPs (Kaan 2007)

Language processing occurs extremely fast.Language processing is extremely accurate.

For a more exhaust overview of language processingrelated ERP components see Kutas et al. 2006 inGernsbacher and Traxler’s Handbook of PsycholinguisticsElseiver.For ERP technical and methodological aspects see Luck,2005. An introduction to the event-related potentialtechnique. MIT Press.



Kaan 2007EEG/ERP


ERPs (Kaan 2007)

Language processing occurs extremely fast.Language processing is extremely accurate.For a more exhaust overview of language processingrelated ERP components see Kutas et al. 2006 inGernsbacher and Traxler’s Handbook of PsycholinguisticsElseiver.

For ERP technical and methodological aspects see Luck,2005. An introduction to the event-related potentialtechnique. MIT Press.



Kaan 2007EEG/ERP


ERPs (Kaan 2007)

Language processing occurs extremely fast.Language processing is extremely accurate.For a more exhaust overview of language processingrelated ERP components see Kutas et al. 2006 inGernsbacher and Traxler’s Handbook of PsycholinguisticsElseiver.For ERP technical and methodological aspects see Luck,2005. An introduction to the event-related potentialtechnique. MIT Press.



Kaan 2007EEG/ERP


Some issuesFrom signal to componentsPros and ConsLinguistic Components

Event Related brain Potentials


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



Some issues

Synapses

Electric currentPiramidal neurons align and syncronicallyactivatedDipole direction


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



Some issues

SynapsesElectric current

Piramidal neurons align and syncronicallyactivatedDipole direction


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



Some issues

SynapsesElectric currentPiramidal neurons align and syncronicallyactivated

Dipole direction


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



Some issues

SynapsesElectric currentPiramidal neurons align and syncronicallyactivatedDipole direction


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



Synapses


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



Electric Current


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



Dipole Direction


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



From signal to components

From signal to components


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



Signal Acquisition


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



from EEG to ERP


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



Averaging


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP




Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



Electrodes on the scalp, 16-128

Waveforms are called ComponentsComponents are the reflection of the neural mechanismsinvolved in functional processes (in our case in linguisticprocesses)Experiments contain two or more conditions.The ERP waveforms change as a function of theexperimental conditions.

One functional process could be reflected by various ERPcomponents.One same ERP component could reflect various functionalprocesses.


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



Electrodes on the scalp, 16-128Waveforms are called Components

Components are the reflection of the neural mechanismsinvolved in functional processes (in our case in linguisticprocesses)Experiments contain two or more conditions.The ERP waveforms change as a function of theexperimental conditions.



Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



Electrodes on the scalp, 16-128Waveforms are called ComponentsComponents are the reflection of the neural mechanismsinvolved in functional processes (in our case in linguisticprocesses)

Experiments contain two or more conditions.The ERP waveforms change as a function of theexperimental conditions.



Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



Electrodes on the scalp, 16-128Waveforms are called ComponentsComponents are the reflection of the neural mechanismsinvolved in functional processes (in our case in linguisticprocesses)Experiments contain two or more conditions.The ERP waveforms change as a function of theexperimental conditions.



Kaan 2007EEG/ERP




One functional process could be reflected by various ERPcomponents.

One same ERP component could reflect various functionalprocesses.


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP






Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



Multidimensionality

Polarity:The EEG signal is a sequence of positive and negative goingdeflections.The brain’s electric activity is measured in microVolts.

Latency:The moment when component peaks related to a given stimulusoccur.The temporal resolution of ERPs could show stimulus relateddifferences very early ( 50ms. after stimulus presentation)Amplitude:Certain functional processes show bigger amplitudes in thesame ERP component.Topography:The localization of ERP components vary depending on thefunctional processes triggered by the stimulation.


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



Multidimensionality

Polarity:The EEG signal is a sequence of positive and negative goingdeflections.The brain’s electric activity is measured in microVolts.Latency:The moment when component peaks related to a given stimulusoccur.The temporal resolution of ERPs could show stimulus relateddifferences very early ( 50ms. after stimulus presentation)

Amplitude:Certain functional processes show bigger amplitudes in thesame ERP component.Topography:The localization of ERP components vary depending on thefunctional processes triggered by the stimulation.


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



Multidimensionality

Polarity:The EEG signal is a sequence of positive and negative goingdeflections.The brain’s electric activity is measured in microVolts.Latency:The moment when component peaks related to a given stimulusoccur.The temporal resolution of ERPs could show stimulus relateddifferences very early ( 50ms. after stimulus presentation)Amplitude:Certain functional processes show bigger amplitudes in thesame ERP component.

Topography:The localization of ERP components vary depending on thefunctional processes triggered by the stimulation.


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



Multidimensionality

Polarity:The EEG signal is a sequence of positive and negative goingdeflections.The brain’s electric activity is measured in microVolts.Latency:The moment when component peaks related to a given stimulusoccur.The temporal resolution of ERPs could show stimulus relateddifferences very early ( 50ms. after stimulus presentation)Amplitude:Certain functional processes show bigger amplitudes in thesame ERP component.Topography:The localization of ERP components vary depending on thefunctional processes triggered by the stimulation.


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



ERPs: Pros and Cons

ProsMultidimensional signal: polarity, latency, amplitude, andtopography could inform about the nature of the processes:authomatic or not, syntax vs. semantics...

Continuous signal: the fast rate of the signal (one samplingrate every 4 ms.) almost matches the fast rate of languagecomprehension.No task is required. Young children, L2 learners, andpeople with patologies can be easily tested.Auditory stimulation enables to test young children,patients...


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



ERPs: Pros and Cons

ProsMultidimensional signal: polarity, latency, amplitude, andtopography could inform about the nature of the processes:authomatic or not, syntax vs. semantics...Continuous signal: the fast rate of the signal (one samplingrate every 4 ms.) almost matches the fast rate of languagecomprehension.

No task is required. Young children, L2 learners, andpeople with patologies can be easily tested.Auditory stimulation enables to test young children,patients...


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



ERPs: Pros and Cons

ProsMultidimensional signal: polarity, latency, amplitude, andtopography could inform about the nature of the processes:authomatic or not, syntax vs. semantics...Continuous signal: the fast rate of the signal (one samplingrate every 4 ms.) almost matches the fast rate of languagecomprehension.No task is required. Young children, L2 learners, andpeople with patologies can be easily tested.

Auditory stimulation enables to test young children,patients...


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



ERPs: Pros and Cons

ProsMultidimensional signal: polarity, latency, amplitude, andtopography could inform about the nature of the processes:authomatic or not, syntax vs. semantics...Continuous signal: the fast rate of the signal (one samplingrate every 4 ms.) almost matches the fast rate of languagecomprehension.No task is required. Young children, L2 learners, andpeople with patologies can be easily tested.Auditory stimulation enables to test young children,patients...


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



ERPs: Pros and Cons

ConsA large amount of trials is required in order to get a goodstimulus-to-noise ratio. It leads to fatigue and experimentalstrategies.

Amount of participants: 20 people, 40 items per condition.Time is not absolute: processes could start before the ERPcomponent appears.Poor localization: MEG is used to localize sourcesArtifacts: ERPs are sensitive to muscle tension and eyemovements.In visual presentations, 500 ms. word-by-wordpresentation may load the working memory.


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



ERPs: Pros and Cons

ConsA large amount of trials is required in order to get a goodstimulus-to-noise ratio. It leads to fatigue and experimentalstrategies.Amount of participants: 20 people, 40 items per condition.

Time is not absolute: processes could start before the ERPcomponent appears.Poor localization: MEG is used to localize sourcesArtifacts: ERPs are sensitive to muscle tension and eyemovements.In visual presentations, 500 ms. word-by-wordpresentation may load the working memory.


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



ERPs: Pros and Cons

ConsA large amount of trials is required in order to get a goodstimulus-to-noise ratio. It leads to fatigue and experimentalstrategies.Amount of participants: 20 people, 40 items per condition.Time is not absolute: processes could start before the ERPcomponent appears.

Poor localization: MEG is used to localize sourcesArtifacts: ERPs are sensitive to muscle tension and eyemovements.In visual presentations, 500 ms. word-by-wordpresentation may load the working memory.


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



ERPs: Pros and Cons

ConsA large amount of trials is required in order to get a goodstimulus-to-noise ratio. It leads to fatigue and experimentalstrategies.Amount of participants: 20 people, 40 items per condition.Time is not absolute: processes could start before the ERPcomponent appears.Poor localization: MEG is used to localize sources

Artifacts: ERPs are sensitive to muscle tension and eyemovements.In visual presentations, 500 ms. word-by-wordpresentation may load the working memory.


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



ERPs: Pros and Cons

ConsA large amount of trials is required in order to get a goodstimulus-to-noise ratio. It leads to fatigue and experimentalstrategies.Amount of participants: 20 people, 40 items per condition.Time is not absolute: processes could start before the ERPcomponent appears.Poor localization: MEG is used to localize sourcesArtifacts: ERPs are sensitive to muscle tension and eyemovements.

In visual presentations, 500 ms. word-by-wordpresentation may load the working memory.


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



ERPs: Pros and Cons

ConsA large amount of trials is required in order to get a goodstimulus-to-noise ratio. It leads to fatigue and experimentalstrategies.Amount of participants: 20 people, 40 items per condition.Time is not absolute: processes could start before the ERPcomponent appears.Poor localization: MEG is used to localize sourcesArtifacts: ERPs are sensitive to muscle tension and eyemovements.In visual presentations, 500 ms. word-by-wordpresentation may load the working memory.


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



Linguistic Components

Lingusitic ComponentsMMN(E)LANN400P600


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



MisMatch Negativity

pi-pi-pi-pi-pi-PU-pi-pi-pi-pi


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



Early Left Anterior Negativity

Polarity: negative

Peak Latency: 150-200 ms.Loc.: Left-anterior electrodesLinguistic process: automaticprocessing of phrase structurePhrase Structure Violation:

Das Baby wurde gefuttertThe baby was fedDas Baby wurde im gefuttertThe baby was in the fed


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP




Polarity: negativePeak Latency: 150-200 ms.

Loc.: Left-anterior electrodesLinguistic process: automaticprocessing of phrase structurePhrase Structure Violation:



Kaan 2007EEG/ERP




Polarity: negativePeak Latency: 150-200 ms.Loc.: Left-anterior electrodes

Linguistic process: automaticprocessing of phrase structurePhrase Structure Violation:



Kaan 2007EEG/ERP




Polarity: negativePeak Latency: 150-200 ms.Loc.: Left-anterior electrodesLinguistic process: automaticprocessing of phrase structure

Phrase Structure Violation:



Kaan 2007EEG/ERP




Polarity: negativePeak Latency: 150-200 ms.Loc.: Left-anterior electrodesLinguistic process: automaticprocessing of phrase structurePhrase Structure Violation:



Kaan 2007EEG/ERP





Das Baby wurde gefuttert

The baby was fedDas Baby wurde im gefuttertThe baby was in the fed


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP





Das Baby wurde gefuttertThe baby was fed

Das Baby wurde im gefuttertThe baby was in the fed


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP





Das Baby wurde gefuttertThe baby was fedDas Baby wurde im gefuttert

The baby was in the fed


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP







Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



Left Anterior Negativity

Polarity: negative

Peak Latency: 300-500 ms.Loc.: Left-anterior electrodesLing. process: Morpho-syntacticagreement processes

Case and Agreement violationsObject vs. Subject Relativesand QuestionsWord Order Variations


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP





Loc.: Left-anterior electrodesLing. process: Morpho-syntacticagreement processes



Kaan 2007EEG/ERP




Polarity: negativePeak Latency: 300-500 ms.Loc.: Left-anterior electrodes

Ling. process: Morpho-syntacticagreement processes



Kaan 2007EEG/ERP




Polarity: negativePeak Latency: 300-500 ms.Loc.: Left-anterior electrodesLing. process: Morpho-syntacticagreement processes



Kaan 2007EEG/ERP





Case and Agreement violations

Object vs. Subject Relativesand QuestionsWord Order Variations


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP





Case and Agreement violationsObject vs. Subject Relativesand Questions

Word Order Variations


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP







Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



N400

Polarity: negative

Peak Latency: 300-500 ms.Topography: CentralLinguistic Process: difficultysemantically integrating thestimulus into the precedingcontext


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



N400


Topography: CentralLinguistic Process: difficultysemantically integrating thestimulus into the precedingcontext


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



N400

Polarity: negativePeak Latency: 300-500 ms.Topography: Central

Linguistic Process: difficultysemantically integrating thestimulus into the precedingcontext


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



N400

Polarity: negativePeak Latency: 300-500 ms.Topography: CentralLinguistic Process: difficultysemantically integrating thestimulus into the precedingcontext


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



P600

Polarity: Positive

Peak Latency: 600-900 ms.

Loc.: Central and Posteriorelectrodes

Linguistic process: parser’sdificulties

ungrammaticalstructureserror monitoring andreprocessingSintactic Reanalisis


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



P600

Polarity: Positive




ungrammaticalstructures

error monitoring andreprocessingSintactic Reanalisis


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



P600

Polarity: Positive




ungrammaticalstructureserror monitoring andreprocessing

Sintactic Reanalisis


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



P600

Polarity: Positive




ungrammaticalstructureserror monitoring andreprocessingSintactic Reanalisis


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



Even though the cognitive mechanisms associated with theN400, LAN, and P600 components are still debated, thedistinction between these components has been valuable ininvestigating language processing in aphasic patients andsecond language learners, among other populations.Kaan 2007, p. 582


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP


An Exercise about Materialsfrom Bornkessel et al. 2009


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP


Kaan 2007, p.575

In well-designed word or sentence processing experiments, aparticular item is not repeated within a given participant.Instead, sets of items are created, with each set containing thedifferent versions (conditions) of the item. The items are thencounterbalanced over participant lists, such that no participantreceives more than one version of a particular item, but allversions of each item are presented in the experiment as awhole. For an ERP experiment with four different conditions, aresearcher would therefore need to construct at least 4 times40, resulting in 160 item sets. Given the tight restrictions onmatching critical items for length, frequency of occurrence, andother potentially confounding differences between theconditions of interest, it can take over a year before a good setof materials is constructed.


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP


Materials section of Bornkessel et al. 2009


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



Thirty-six sets of the four critical sentence conditions (see Table 1) were constructed on the basis of lexical tripletsconsisting of a proper name, a bare plural noun, and a verb assigning accusative object case. Each sentence wascombined with a matrix clause of the form shown in Table 1 (matrix clauses were always identical for one lexical set).An additional 36 sets of the four critical conditions were constructed by replacing the verb in each of the first 36 setswith a verb assigning dative object case. This variation (CASE) was implemented as a between-participants factor inorder to control for possible influences of different kinds of object case on word order processing (see Bornkessel,McElree, Schlesewsky, & Friederici, 2004, for ERP data showing such differences). Note that all verbs allowedgeneric and indefinite readings for bare plural subjects and objects, hence ruling out a subject-object asymmetrybased on differences in ambiguity. The complete experimental materials thus consisted of 144 sentences withaccusative verbs (36 per condition) and 144 sentences with dative verbs (36 per condition). These weresubsequently subdivided into four lists of 72 sentences each, with two lists containing only sentences withaccusative verbs and two lists containing only sentences with dative verbs. Each list contained 18 sentences fromeach of the four conditions in Table 1 and two sentences from each lexical set. List presentation wascounterbalanced across participants. Each participant read the materials from a single list once and was therebyeither confronted with critical sentences containing accusative verbs or with critical sentences containing dativeverbs. Each list of 72 critical sentences was pseudo- randomly combined with 72 filler sentences, 42 of which wereungrammatical (to balance responses for the acceptability judgment task, see below). Thirty-six null events (emptytrials) were also included in each list in order to improve the statistical evaluation of the data (Miezin, Maccotta,Ollinger, Petersen, & Buckner, 2000). The pseudo-randomization ensured that not more than two sentences from asingle condition were presented in a row, that at least twenty trials intervened between the repetition of lexicalmaterials and that critical sentences, null events and fillers were distributed equally among the two functional runs(see below). The filler sentences were identical in all versions of the experiment and were of a similar structure tothe critical sentences (including a matrix clause of the type exemplified in Table 1 and a subordinate clauseintroduced by the complementizer dass). Furthermore, the filler sentences included varying orders and nounphrases of varying referentiality so that they would be initially indistinguishable from the critical experimentalsentences. Ungrammatical fillers included violations of case marking or agreement. (Bornkessel et al. 2009)


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



(18 experimental items X 4 conditions (72)) + 72 fillers (42agrammatical) + 36 null events = 180 items per participants.

4 Lists were generated (2 Datives and 2 Accusative)Lists were countrabalanced across participants.

180 x 4 = 720


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP


Zawiszewski 2007Diaz et al.

Processing Phrase Structure Violations, Subject-Objectagreement violations, and Semantic Violations in Basque:

native vs. high proficient bilinguals.Zawiszewski 2007


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



Basque Bilinguals and ERPs (Zawiszewski 2007)

aimThe aim of this study was to contribute to the understanding ofthe impact of cross-linguistic variability in language processingby means of Case-marking, Object-Verb agreement, PhraseStructure and Semantic violations.

Participants42 right-handed native speakers of Basque.Two Groups:

21 native speakers21 speakers of Basque, natives of Spanish. AoA = 3.1 yrs

8 participants (4 from each group) were excluded from the finalanalysis, due to ERP artifacts or high error rate in behavioral test.


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP




Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



Methods

MaterialsParticipants were asked to read 640 sentences distributed intwo lists (A and B). Each list contained 320 sentences: 40 foreach experimental condition (20 grammatical and 20ungrammatical) and 160 fillers.

Phrase Structure1a. Phrase Structure Correct

Etxe-an askotan gauza-k guraso-en arabera egiten dituguhome-at usually things parents-GEN depending do-part have-1PL

1b. Phrase Structure ViolationEtxe-ean askotan gauza-k *arabera guraso-en egiten ditugu.home-at usually things *depending parents-GEN do-part have-1PL


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



Object Agreement

2a. Object Agreement CorrectZu-k ni hondartza-ra eramaten na-u-zu batzuetan.you-Sub j I-Obj beach-to take me-have-you sometimes

2b. Object Agreement ViolationZu-k ni hondartza-ra eramaten *d-u-zu batzuetan.you-Subj I-Obj beach-to take 3SG-have-you sometimes

Ergative Case

3a. Ergative Case CorrectGoiz-ean ogi-a-Øerosi dut ni-k denda-n.morning-in bread-det-ABS bought have I-ERG shop-in

3b. Ergative Case ViolationGoiz-ean ogi-a-Øerosi dut ni-Ø denda-n.morning-in bread-det-ABS bought have I-ABS shop-in


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



Semantic Conditions4a. Semantic Correct

Ikasle-ek bazkaltze-ra gonbidatu zuten maisua atzo.students-Subj lunch-for invite-PART havePAST teacher yesterday

4b. Semantic ViolationIkasle-ek bazkaltze-ra gonbidatu zuten *horma atzo.students-Subj lunch-for invite-PART havePAST *wall yesterday


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



Behavioral Results


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



ERP Results


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



Processing Ergative Case, and Subject-Object agreementviolations: Basque native speakers and high proficient

Spanish-Basque bilinguals.Diaz, B., Erdozia, K., Sebastian, N., Mueller, J., Laka, I.


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



Basque Bilinguals and ERPs (Diaz et al.)

aimThe aim of this study was to contribute to the understanding ofthe impact of cross-linguistic variability in language processingby means of SOV, Ergativity, Case-marking, and multipleverb-agreement.

Participants24 right-handed native speakers of Basque.


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



Methods

Materials1. Grammatical Sentences

Mikel-en arreb-ek egunkari-a saski-a-n ekarri d-u-te kiosko-tikMikel-gen sister-the-erg.pl. newspaper-the-abs.sg case-the-in brought it-root-they kiosk-from

2. Ergative Case ViolationMikel-en arreb-ek egunkari-ek* saski-a-n ekarri d-u-te kiosko-tik

3. Subject-Verb Agreement ViolationMikel-en arreb-ek egunkari-a saski-a-n ekarri d-u* kiosko-tik

4. Grammatical Direct Object-Verb AgreementMikelen arreb-ek egunkari-a-k saskian ekarri dit-u-zte kioskotikMikel-gen sister-the-erg.pl. neuspaper-the-abs.pl. case-the-in brought them-root-they kiosk-from

5. Direct Object-Verb Agreement ViolationMikelen arreb-ek egunkari-a-k saskian ekarri d*-u-te kioskotik


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



Methods

MaterialsTwo sets of grammatical sentences and four sets ofungrammatical sentences had been presented in the previoustable. 40 grammatical Basque sentences were created(example 1). From each of the grammatical sentences, the restof teh conditions were derived.In adiction, 80 fillers (grammatical sentences) were presentend.All sentences were spoken by a female Basque native speakerin a soundproof booth. Sentences were digitally recorded with16-bits. No differences in sentences length or mean amplitudewere present across conditions.


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



Methods

ProcedureGrammatical judgment taskParticipants were instructed to push one botton with onehand when listening to correct sentences and to pushanother button with the other hand, when the sentenceswas incorrect.320 trials were presentend in random order (no more than3 consecutive from the same condition.Fixation point = 500 ms.


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



Results


Kaan 2007EEG/ERP



The End


ADVANCES COURSE OF PSYCHO-/NEUROLINGUSITICS - Event

Documents

Transcript of ADVANCES COURSE OF PSYCHO-/NEUROLINGUSITICS - Event