1. Akhutina et al. 2016 — Akhutina T. V., Korneev A. A., Matveeva E. Yu., Statnikov A. I. Understanding of logical-grammatical constructions by second grade pupils: Neurolinguistic analysis of mechanisms. Sbornik materialov Ezhegodnoi mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii «Vospitanie i obuchenie detei mladshego vozrasta». No. 5. Moscow: OOO “Mozaika-Sintez”, 2016. Pp. 4—6.
2. Krabis et al. 2015 — Krabis A. V., Dragoi O. V., Iskra E. V., Bergel’son M. B. Undestanding of spatial constructions by healthy people and patients with aphasia. Kognitivnaya nauka v Moskve: novye issledovaniya. Pechenkova E. V., Falikman M. V. (eds.). Moscow: BukiVedi, 2015. Pp. 216—220.
3. Krabis et al. (in print) — Krabis A. V., Ovsepyan M. A., Dragoi O. V. The role of motor stereotype in understanding of linguistic spatial constructions by preschool age children. Vestnik Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ser.: Lingvistika i mezhkul’turnaya kommunikatsiya (in print).
4. Luriya 1962 — Luriya A. R. Vysshie korkovye funktsii cheloveka i ikh narusheniya pri lokal’nykh porazheniyakh mozga [Human higher cortical functions and their failures as a result of local brain damage]. Moscow: Moscow Univ. Publ., 1962.
5. NKRYa — Natsional’nyi korpus russkogo yazyka [Russian National Corpus]. Available at: http://www.ruscorpora.ru. 
6. Prostranstvo v yazyke — Prostranstvo v yazyke: rol’ sensomotornykh stereotipov v ponimanii prostranstvennykh yazykovykh konstruktsii [Space in language: The role of sensorimotor stereotypes in understanding of spatical linguistic constructions]. [Electronnic resource]. 2016. Available at: https://www.hse.ru/neuroling/research/stereotypes  (accessed: 02.11.2016).
7. Sirotinina 1974 — Sirotinina O. B. Sovremennaya razgovornaya rech’ i ee osobennosti [Modern colloquial language at its characteristics]. Moscow: Prosveshchenie, 1974.
8. Statnikov et al. 2011 — Statnikov A. I., Dragoi O. V., Bergel’son M. B., Iskra E. V., Mannova E., Skvortsov A. A. Peculiarities of understanding of logical-grammatical constructions by patients with different forms of aphasia. Kognitivnaya nauka v Moskve: novye issledovaniya. Pechenkova E. V., Falikman M. V. (eds.). Moscow: BukiVedi, 2011. Pp. 238—242.
9. Fedorova 2008 — Fedorova O. V. Methods for registration of eye-movements «visual world»: a chance for a «rapprochement » of linguistic traditions. Voprosy jazykoznanija. 2008. No. 6. Pp. 98—120.
10. Chernova 2015 — Chernova D. A. Syntactic analysis of the sentence in the process of speech perception: Experimental study of processing of syntactically ambiguous constructions in Russian. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. 2015. No. 1(29). Pp. 36—44.
11. Alday et al. 2014 — Alday P. M., Schlesewsky M., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I. Towards a computational model of actor-based language comprehension. Neuroinformatics. 2014. Vol. 12. No. 1. Pp. 143—179.
12. Bailyn 2012 — Bailyn J. F. The syntax of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012.
13. Bates et al. 2015 — Bates D., Maechler M., Bolker B., Walker S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software. Vol. 67. No. 1. Pp. 1—48.
14. Boersma, Weenink 2017 — Boersma P., Weenink D. Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. 2017. Version 6.0.25. Available at: http://www.praat.org/. 
15. Bosbach et al. 2005 — Bosbach S., Cole J., Prinz W., Knoblich G. Inferring another’s expectation from action: The role of peripheral sensation. Nature Neuroscience. 2005. Vol. 8. No. 10. Pp. 1295—1297.
16. Buccino et al. 2005 — Buccino G., Riggio L., Melli G., Binkofski F., Gallese V., Rizzolatti G. Listening to action-related sentences modulates the activity of the motor system: A combined TMS and behavioral study. Cognitive Brain Research. 2005. Vol. 24. No. 3. Pp. 355—363.
17. Chang, Jessop 2015 — Chang F., Jessop A. A cross-linguistic model of production and comprehension in visual worlds. Talk presented at the 28th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing (Los Angeles). 2015. Available at: https://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/836/docs/CUNY_program_web_reduced_edits_sponsors.pdf. 
18. Coltheart 1999 — Coltheart M. Modularity and cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 1999. Vol. 3. No. 3. Pp. 115—120.
19. Dyakonova 2009 — Dyakonova M. A phase-based approach to Russian free word order. Utrecht: LOT, 2009.
20. Ferreira 2003 — Ferreira F. The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology. 2003. Vol. 47. No. 2. Pp. 164—203.
21. Ferreira, Patson 2007 — Ferreira F., Patson N. D. The ‘good enough’ approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass. 2007. Vol. 1. No. 1—2. Pp. 71—83.
22. Fodor 1986 — Fodor J. A. The modularity of mind. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, 1986.
23. González et al. 2006 — González J., Barros-Loscertales A., Pulvermüller F., Meseguer V., Sanjuán A., Belloch V., Ávila C. Reading cinnamon activates olfactory brain regions. Neuroimage. 2006. Vol. 32. No. 2. Pp. 906—912.
24. Hauk et al. 2004 — Hauk O., Johnsrude I., Pulvermüller F. Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron. 2004. Vol. 41. No. 2. Pp. 301—307.
25. Helbig et al. 2006 — Helbig H. B., Graf M., Kiefer M. The role of action representations in visual object recognition. Experimental Brain Research. 2006. Vol. 174. No. 2. Pp. 221—228.
26. Kempen et al. 2012 — Kempen G., Olsthoorn N., Sprenger S. Grammatical workspace sharing during language production and language comprehension: Evidence from grammatical multitasking. Language and Cognitive Processes. 2012. Vol. 27. No. 3. Pp. 345—380.
27. Levy 2008 — Levy R. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition. 2008. Vol. 106. No. 3. Pp. 1126—1177.
28. Locher et al. 2007 — Locher P., Krupinski E. A., Mello-Thoms C., Nodine C. F. Visual interest in pictorial art during an aesthetic experience. Spatial Vision. 2007. Vol. 21. No. 1 Pp. 55—77.
29. Marino et al. 2012 — Marino B. F., Gallese V., Buccino G., Riggio L. Language sensorimotor specificity modulates the motor system. Сortex. 2012. Vol. 48. No. 7. Pp. 849—856.
30. Meyer et al. 2016 — Meyer A. S., Huettig F., Levelt W. J. M. Same, different, or closely related: What is the relationship between language production and comprehension? Journal of Memory and Language. 2016. Vol. 89. Pp. 1—7.
31. Nicholls, Roberts 2002 — Nicholls M. E. R., Roberts G. R. Can free-viewing perceptual asymmetries be explained by scanning, pre-motor or attentional biases? Cortex. 2002. Vol. 38. No. 2. Pp. 113—136.
32. O’Grady, Lee 2005 — O’Grady W., Lee M. A mapping theory of agrammatic comprehension deficits. Brain and Language. 2005. Vol. 92. No. 1. Pp. 91—100.
33. Pulvermüller et al. 2005 — Pulvermüller F., Hauk O., Nikulin V. V., Ilmoniemi R. J. Functional links between motor and language systems. European Journal of Neuroscience. 2005. Vol. 21. No. 3. Pp. 793—797.
34. R Core Team 2016 — R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria, 2016. Available at: https://www.R-project.org/. 
35. Simmons et al. 2005 — Simmons W. K., Martin A., Barsalou L. W. Pictures of appetizing foods activate gustatory cortices for taste and reward. Cerebral Cortex. 2005. Vol. 15. No. 10. Pp. 1602—1608.
36. Spalek, Hammad 2005 — Spalek T. M., Hammad S. The left-to-right bias in inhibition of return is due to the direction of reading. Psychological Science. 2005. Vol. 16. No. 1. Pp. 15—18.
37. Tabor et al. 2004 — Tabor W., Galantucci B., Richardson D. Effects of merely local syntactic coherence on sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language. 2004. Vol. 50. No. 4. Pp. 355—370.
38. Tanenhaus et al. 2000 — Tanenhaus M. K., Magnuson J. S., Dahan D., Chambers C. Eye movements and lexical access in spoken-language comprehension: Evaluating a linking hypothesis between fixations and linguistic processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 2000. Vol. 29. No. 6. Pp. 557—580.
39. Tucker, Ellis 1998 — Tucker M., Ellis R. On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human perception and performance. 1998. Vol. 24. No. 3. Pp. 830.