Table S2 MP category 6 group interaction. Tukey HSD test, Approximate Probabilities for Post Hoc Tests Error: Pooled MS = 31.32, df = 70.42. Relevant comparisons are in bold. Post hoc comparisons performed over category 6 group interaction show enhanced compatibility effect in the CHG. Only CHG in the compatible condition was statistically different to the neutral and incompatible conditions, in terms of MP amplitudes. Found at: doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011751.s005 (0.03 MB DOC) Table S3 RAP: category 6 group interaction. Tukey HSD test; Approximate Probabilities for Post Hoc Tests Error: MS = 13.47, df = 70.54. Relevant comparisons are in bold. Post hoc compar- isons performed over category 6 group interaction show that the compatible condition was statistically different from the neutral References 1. Fischer MH, Zwaan RA (2008) Embodied language: a review of the role of the motor system in language comprehension. Quart J Exp Psychol 825: 850. 2. Pulvermuller F (2008) Grounding language in the brain. In: de Vega M, Graesser A, Glenberg AM, eds. Symbols, embodiment, and meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp 85–116. 3. Ku Y, Ohara S, Wang L, Lenz FA, Hsiao SS, et al. (2007) Prefrontal cortex and somatosensory cortex in tactile crossmodal association: an independent component analysis of ERP recordings. PLoS One (1): e771. 4. Warrington EK, Shallice T (1984) Category specific semantic impairments. Brain 107 (Pt 3): 829–854. 5. McCarthy R, Warrington EK (1990) The dissolution of semantics. Nature 343: 599. 6. Martin A (2007) The representation of object concepts in the brain. Annu Rev Psychol 58: 25–45. 7. Martin A, Caramazza A (2003) The Organization of Conceptual Knowledge in the Brain. Philadelphia: Psychology Press. 447 p. 8. Bergen B, Lindsay S, Matlock S, Narayanan S (2007) Spatial and linguistic aspects of visual imaginery in sentence comprehension of verb. Cogn Sci 31: 733–764. 9. Richardson D, Spivey M, Barsalou L, McRae K (2003) Spatial representations activated during real-time comprehension of verbs. Cogn Sci 31: 733–764. 10. Glenberg AM, Kaschak MP (2002) Grounding language in action. Psychon Bull Rev 9: 558–565. 11. Zwaan RA, Stanfield RA, Yaxley RH (2002) Language comprehenders mentally represent the shapes of objects. Psychol Sci 13: 168–171. 12. Boulenger V, Roy AC, Paulignan Y, Deprez V, Jeannerod M, et al. (2006) Cross-talk between language processes and overt motor behavior in the first 200 msec of processing. J Cogn Neurosci 18: 1607–1615. 13. Goldberg RF, Perfetti CA, Schneider W (2006) Perceptual knowledge retrieval activates sensory brain regions. J Neurosci 26: 4917–4921. 14. Tettamanti M, Buccino G, Saccuman MC, Gallese V, Danna M, et al. (2005) Listening to action-related sentences activates fronto-parietal motor circuits. J Cogn Neurosci 17: 273–281. 15. Buccino G, Riggio L, Melli G, Binkofski F, Gallese V, et al. (2005) Listening to action-related sentences modulates the activity of the motor system: a combined TMS and behavioral study. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 24: 355–363. 16. Hauk O, Johnsrude I, Pulvermuller F (2004) Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron 41: 301–307. 17. Ehrsson HH, Geyer S, Naito E (2003) Imagery of voluntary movement of fingers, toes, and tongue activates corresponding body-part-specific motor representations. J Neurophysiol 90: 3304–3316. 18. Lotze M, Montoya P, Erb M, Hulsmann E, Flor H, et al. (1999) Activation of cortical and cerebellar motor areas during executed and imagined hand movements: an fMRI study. J Cogn Neurosci 11: 491–501. 19. Shtyrov Y, Hauk O, Pulvermuller F (2004) Distributed neuronal networks for encoding category-specific semantic information: the mismatch negativity to action words. Eur J Neurosci 19: 1083–1092. 20. Pulvermuller F, Shtyrov Y (2006) Language outside the focus of attention: the mismatch negativity as a tool for studying higher cognitive processes. Prog Neurobiol 79: 49–71. 21. Mahon BZ, Caramazza A (2008) A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal for grounding conceptual content. J Physiol Paris 102: 59–70. 22. Toni I, de Lange FP, Noordzij ML, Hagoort P (2008) Language beyond action. J Physiol Paris 102: 71–79. 23. Louwerse MM, Jeuniaux P (2008) How fundamental is embodiment to language comprehension? Constraints on embodied cognition. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. pp 1313–1318. 24. Willems RM, Hagoort P (2007) Neural evidence for the interplay between language, gesture, and action: a review. Brain Lang 101: 278–289. 25. Nachev P, Kennard C, Husain M (2008) Functional role of the supplementary and pre-supplementary motor areas. Nat Rev Neurosci 9: 856–869. Neural Signatures of ACE and incompatible conditions in CHG, in terms of RAP amplitudes. The OHG presented a trend towards significance in the incompatible condition compared with the compatible condition. The larger compatibility effect in CHG shown in MP was similar in RAP. Found at: doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011751.s006 (0.03 MB DOC) Author Contributions Conceived and designed the experiments: PA AMI. Performed the experiments: PA AMI. Analyzed the data: PA EH JC FM AMI. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: PA EH RR JC FM AMI. Wrote the paper: PA EH RR JC FM AMI. 26. Fuster JM (2003) Cortex and mind. New York: Oxford University Press. 27. Mesulam MM (1998) From sensation to cognition. Brain 121 (Pt 6): 1013–1052. 28. Mesulam MM (1990) Large-scale neurocognitive networks and distributed processing for attention, language, and memory. Ann Neurol 28: 597–613. 29. Iba n˜ez A, Manes F, Escobar J, Trujillo N, Andreucci P, et al. (2010) Gesture influences the processing of figurative language in non-native speakers: ERP evidence. Neurosci Lett 471: 48–52. 30. Kelly SD, Creigh P, Bartolotti J (2010) Integrating speech and iconic gestures in a Stroop-like task: evidence for automatic processing. J Cogn Neurosci 22: 683–694. 31. Cornejo C, Simonetti F, Iba n˜ez A, Aldunate N, Ceric F, et al. (2009) Gesture and metaphor comprehension: electrophysiological evidence of cross-modal coordination by audiovisual stimulation. Brain Cogn 70: 42–52. 32. Koelsch S (2009) Music-syntactic processing and auditory memory: similarities and differences between ERAN and MMN. Psychophysiology 46: 179–190. 33. Diamond ME, von HM, Knutsen PM, Kleinfeld D, Ahissar E (2008) ‘Where’ and ‘what’ in the whisker sensory-motor system. Nat Rev Neurosci 9: 601–612. 34. Kelly SD, Ward S, Creigh P, Bartolotti J (2007) An intentional stance modulates the integration of gesture and speech during comprehension. Brain Lang 101: 222–233. 35. Wu YC, Coulson S (2005) Meaningful gestures: electrophysiological indices of iconic gesture comprehension. Psychophysiology 42: 654–667. 36. Kelly SD, Kravitz C, Hopkins M (2004) Neural correlates of bimodal speech and gesture comprehension. Brain Lang 89: 253–260. 37. Kelly SD, Iverson JM, Terranova J, Niego J, Hopkins M, et al. (2002) Putting language back in the body: speech and gesture on three time frames. Dev Neuropsychol 22: 323–349. 38. Jeannerod M (2001) Neural simulation of action: a unifying mechanism for motor cognition. Neuroimage 14: S103–S109. 39. Davidson D (2001) Subjective, intersubjective, objective. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. 40. Groeben N, Scheele B (2000) Dialog-Konsens-Methodik im Forschungspro- gramm Subjektive Theorien [9 Absa¨tze]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/ Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), Art. 10, available at http:// nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0002105. 41. Pulvermuller F, Hauk O, Nikulin VV, Ilmoniemi RJ (2005) Functional links between motor and language systems. Eur J Neurosci 21: 793–797. 42. Pulvermuller F (2005) Brain mechanisms linking language and action. Nat Rev Neurosci 6: 576–582. 43. Glover S, Rosenbaum DA, Graham J, Dixon P (2004) Grasping the meaning of words. Exp Brain Res 154: 103–108. 44. Hauk O, Pulvermuller F (2004) Neurophysiological distinction of action words in the fronto-central cortex. Hum Brain Mapp 21: 191–201. 45. Oliveri M, Finocchiaro C, Shapiro K, Gangitano M, Caramazza A, et al. (2004) All talk and no action: a transcranial magnetic stimulation study of motor cortex activation during action word production. J Cogn Neurosci 16: 374–381. 46. Gentilucci M, Gangitano M (1998) Influence of automatic word reading on motor control. Eur J Neurosci 10: 752–756. 47. Obleser J, Kotz SA (2010) Expectancy constraints in degraded speech modulate the language comprehension network. Cereb Cortex 20: 633–640. 48. Obleser J, Kotz SA (2008) Semantic constraints on degraded speech: Fine- tuning the speech comprehension network. J Cogn Neurosci. Supplement. S231. 49. de Vega M (in press) Levels of embodied meaning: From pointing to counterfactuals. In: Glenberg AM, de Vega M, Graesser A, eds. The Garachico Workshop of Symbols and Embodied. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. 50. Wheeler K, Bergen B (in press) Meaning in the palm of your hand. In: Rice S, Newman J, eds. Empirical and Experimental Methods in Conceptual structure, Discourse, and Language. Stanford: CSLI, In press. PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 12 July 2010 | Volume 5 | Issue 7 | e11751