Lexical enhancement during prime-target integration: ERP evidence from matched-case identity priming.

Marta Vergara-Martínez, Pablo Gómez, María Jiménez, Manuel Perea
Author Information
  1. Marta Vergara-Martínez: Dpto. de Psicología Evolutiva y de la Educación, Universitat de València, Av. Blasco Ibáñez, 21, 46010, Valencia, Spain, marta.vergara@uv.es.

Abstract

A number of experiments have revealed that matched-case identity PRIME-TARGET pairs are responded to faster than mismatched-case identity prime-TARGET pairs for pseudowords (e.g., JUDPE-JUDPE < judpe-JUDPE), but not for words (JUDGE-JUDGE = judge-JUDGE). These findings suggest that prime-target integration processes are enhanced when the stimuli tap onto lexical representations, overriding physical differences between the stimuli (e.g., case). To track the time course of this phenomenon, we conducted an event-related potential (ERP) masked-priming lexical decision experiment that manipulated matched versus mismatched case identity in words and pseudowords. The behavioral results replicated previous research. The ERP waves revealed that matched-case identity-priming effects were found at a very early time epoch (N/P150 effects) for words and pseudowords. Importantly, around 200 ms after target onset (N250), these differences disappeared for words but not for pseudowords. These findings suggest that different-case word forms (lower- and uppercase) tap into the same abstract representation, leading to prime-target integration very early in processing. In contrast, different-case pseudoword forms are processed as two different representations. This word-pseudoword dissociation has important implications for neural accounts of visual-word recognition.

References

  1. Neuroimage. 2004 Aug;22(4):1819-25 [PMID: 15275938]
  2. Lang Linguist Compass. 2009 Jan 1;3(1):128-156 [PMID: 19750025]
  3. Neuroreport. 2009 Mar 4;20(4):381-7 [PMID: 19248245]
  4. Cogn Neuropsychol. 2006 Sep;23(6):795-821 [PMID: 21049354]
  5. Behav Res Methods. 2010 Aug;42(3):627-33 [PMID: 20805584]
  6. Cogn Neuropsychol. 2009 Feb;26(1):50-69 [PMID: 18649251]
  7. Neuroimage. 2014 Apr 1;89:331-44 [PMID: 24321558]
  8. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1995 May;21(3):785-94 [PMID: 7602272]
  9. Trends Cogn Sci. 2008 Oct;12(10):381-7 [PMID: 18760658]
  10. Behav Res Methods. 2005 Nov;37(4):665-71 [PMID: 16629300]
  11. Cereb Cortex. 2010 May;20(5):1153-63 [PMID: 19684250]
  12. Nat Commun. 2012;3:1284 [PMID: 23250414]
  13. Psychophysiology. 2007 Jul;44(4):506-21 [PMID: 17498223]
  14. Trends Cogn Sci. 2005 Jul;9(7):335-41 [PMID: 15951224]
  15. Psychon Bull Rev. 2006 Aug;13(4):674-81 [PMID: 17201369]
  16. Percept Psychophys. 1995 Nov;57(8):1101-10 [PMID: 8539086]
  17. PLoS One. 2009;4(4):e5359 [PMID: 19396362]
  18. J Cogn Neurosci. 2006 May;18(5):818-32 [PMID: 16768380]
  19. Lang Cogn Process. 2007 Jan;22(3):337-376 [PMID: 18163153]
  20. Psychophysiology. 2012 Sep;49(9):1277-89 [PMID: 22803612]
  21. Brain Res. 2011 Apr 22;1386:153-64 [PMID: 21354110]
  22. J Cogn Neurosci. 2006 Oct;18(10):1631-43 [PMID: 17014368]
  23. Neuropsychologia. 1971 Mar;9(1):97-113 [PMID: 5146491]
  24. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2008 Aug;137(3):434-55 [PMID: 18729709]
  25. J Cogn Neurosci. 2006 Jun;18(6):911-22 [PMID: 16839299]
  26. Psychol Sci. 2004 May;15(5):307-13 [PMID: 15102139]
  27. J Cogn Neurosci. 2013 Nov;25(11):1975-85 [PMID: 23806176]
  28. Nat Neurosci. 2001 Jul;4(7):752-8 [PMID: 11426233]
  29. Psychon Bull Rev. 2000 Mar;7(1):83-99 [PMID: 10780021]
  30. Annu Rev Psychol. 2011;62:621-47 [PMID: 20809790]
  31. Trends Cogn Sci. 2014 Feb;18(2):90-8 [PMID: 24373885]
  32. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2014 May;148:130-5 [PMID: 24525167]
  33. Brain Lang. 2013 Apr;125(1):11-27 [PMID: 23454070]
  34. Cereb Cortex. 2014 Mar;24(3):817-25 [PMID: 23172772]
  35. Cogn Neuropsychol. 2009 Feb;26(1):70-90 [PMID: 19340615]
  36. Brain Res. 2006 Apr 21;1084(1):89-103 [PMID: 16545344]
  37. Lang Cogn Process. 2008;23(1):183-200 [PMID: 19590754]
  38. Cereb Cortex. 2011 Jan;21(1):103-14 [PMID: 20413450]
  39. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1999 May;25(3):721-42 [PMID: 10368929]
  40. Neuroreport. 2003 Jun 11;14(8):1183-7 [PMID: 12821805]
  41. Psychophysiology. 2012 Aug;49(8):1114-24 [PMID: 22681238]
  42. J Exp Child Psychol. 2015 Jan;129:140-7 [PMID: 25306514]
  43. Neuroimage. 2004 May;22(1):466-76 [PMID: 15110040]
  44. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1998 Dec;24(6):1705-19 [PMID: 9861718]
  45. Neuroimage. 2011 Apr 1;55(3):1242-51 [PMID: 21232615]

MeSH Term

Adult
Analysis of Variance
Brain Mapping
Case-Control Studies
Electroencephalography
Evoked Potentials
Female
Humans
Male
Perceptual Masking
Photic Stimulation
Psychomotor Performance
Reaction Time
Semantics
Vocabulary
Young Adult

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0identitypseudowordswordsmatched-caseprime-targetERPrevealedpairsegfindingssuggestintegrationstimulitaplexicalrepresentationsdifferencescasetimeeffectsearlydifferent-caseformsnumberexperimentsPRIME-TARGETrespondedfastermismatched-caseprime-TARGETJUDPE-JUDPE<judpe-JUDPEJUDGE-JUDGE=judge-JUDGEprocessesenhancedontooverridingphysicaltrackcoursephenomenonconductedevent-relatedpotentialmasked-primingdecisionexperimentmanipulatedmatchedversusmismatchedbehavioralresultsreplicatedpreviousresearchwavesidentity-primingfoundepochN/P150Importantlyaround200 mstargetonsetN250disappearedwordlower-uppercaseabstractrepresentationleadingprocessingcontrastpseudowordprocessedtwodifferentword-pseudoworddissociationimportantimplicationsneuralaccountsvisual-wordrecognitionLexicalenhancementintegration:evidencepriming

Similar Articles

Cited By