Can I have a quick word? Early electrophysiological manifestations of psycholinguistic processes revealed by event-related regression analysis of the EEG

Hauk, Olaf; Pulvermüller, Friedemann; Ford, Michael A.; Marslen–Wilson, William D.; Davis, Matthew H.

doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2008.04.015

Cited by 78 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The fact that the neurophysiological difference between congruous and incongruous verb-particle combinations emerged already 180-200 ms after onset of the particle could be taken as neurophysiological evidence in support for early lexical processing, as it has been revealed in a range of earlier studies (Hauk, Davis, Ford, Pulvermüller, & MarslenWilson, 2006;Hauk, Pulvermüller, Ford, Marslen-Wilson, & Davis, 2009;Kissler, Herbert, Winkler, & Junghofer, 2008;Martin-Loeches, 2007;Martin-Loeches, Hinojosa, Gomez-Jarabo, & Rubia, 1999;Pulvermüller, Lutzenberger, & Birbaumer, 1995;Pulvermüller & Shtyrov, 2006;Scott, O'Donnell, Leuthold, & Sereno, 2008;Sereno, Rayner, & Posner, 1998;Shtyrov & Pulvermüller, 2007b). In spite of its consistency with these earlier reports, our early context-related differentiation was found with repeated (deviant) stimuli presented in a restricted context.…”

Section: Minus-up) -Minus -(Cool Up-minus-up) As the Same Value Is Smentioning

confidence: 70%

Heating up or cooling up the brain? MEG evidence that phrasal verbs are lexical units

Cappelle¹,

Shtyrov²,

Pulvermüller³

2010

Brain and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a considerable linguistic debate on whether phrasal verbs (e.g., turn up, break down) are processed as two separate words connected by a syntactic rule or whether they form a single lexical unit. Moreover, views differ on whether meaning (transparency vs. opacity) plays a role in determining their syntactically-connected or lexical status. As linguistic arguments could not settle these issues, we used neurophysiological brain imaging to address them. Applying a multi-feature Mismatch Negativity (MMN) design with subjects instructed to ignore speech stimuli, we recorded magnetic brain responses to particles (up, down) auditorily presented as infrequent -deviant‖ stimuli in the context of frequently occurring verb -standard‖ stimuli. Already at latencies below 200 ms, magnetic brain responses were larger to particles appearing in existing phrasal verbs as context (e.g. rise up) than when they occurred in non-existing combinations (e.g. *fall up), regardless of whether particles carried a literal or metaphorical sense (e.g. rise up, heat up). Previous research found an enhanced MMN response to morphemes in existing (as opposed to non-existing) words but a reduced MMN to words in grammatically acceptable (as opposed to unacceptable) combinations. The increased brain activation to particles in real phrasal verbs reported here is consistent with the lexical enhancement but inconsistent with the syntactic reduction of the MMN, thus providing neurophysiological support that a congruous verb-particle sequence is not assembled syntactically but rather accessed as a single lexical chunk.

show abstract

Section: Minus-up) -Minus -(Cool Up-minus-up) As the Same Value Is Smentioning

confidence: 70%

Heating up or cooling up the brain? MEG evidence that phrasal verbs are lexical units

Cappelle¹,

Shtyrov²,

Pulvermüller³

2010

Brain and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The research on this topic is rather mixed: some studies have found distinct neurophysiological manifestations between pseudowords and words (Hauk, Coutout, Holden, & Chen, 2012;Hauk, Pulvermuller, Ford, Marslen-Wilson, & Davis, 2009;Taroyan & Nicolson, 2009), and significant effects of frequency (Hauk & Pulvermuller, 2004;Sereno, Brewer, & O'Donnell, 2003;Sereno et al, 1998), while others have reported no effect of lexicality or frequency in the N1 time window (Araújo et al, 2012;Hasko et al, 2013;Maurer et al, 2005), suggesting therefore that lexical access is located later on in processing. In this study we manipulated the variable orthographic lexicality (words vs. pseudowords) as a property of the word as a whole, and also compared the N1-evoked response to pseudohomophones as a way to minimize phonological familiarity confound.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lexical and sublexical orthographic processing: An ERP study with skilled and dyslexic adult readers

Araújo

Faísca²,

Bramão

et al. 2015

Brain and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tThis ERP study investigated the cognitive nature of the P1-N1 components during orthographic processing. We used an implicit reading task with various types of stimuli involving different amounts of sublexical or lexical orthographic processing (words, pseudohomophones, pseudowords, nonwords, and symbols), and tested average and dyslexic readers. An orthographic regularity effect (pseudowords-nonwords contrast) was observed in the average but not in the dyslexic group. This suggests an early sensitivity to the dependencies among letters in word-forms that reflect orthographic structure, while the dyslexic brain apparently fails to be appropriately sensitive to these complex features. Moreover, in the adults the N1-response may already reflect lexical access: (i) the N1 was sensitive to the familiar vs. less familiar orthographic sequence contrast; (ii) and early effects of the phonological form (words-pseudohomophones contrast) were also found. Finally, the later N320 component was attenuated in the dyslexics, suggesting suboptimal processing in later stages of phonological analysis.

show abstract

“…In this regard, word length and early letter n-gram frequency affect ERP responses -from 90 to 100 ms after word-onset- (Hauk, Davis, Ford, Pulvermüller, & Marslen-Wilson, 2005;Hauk, Pulvermüller, Ford, Marslen-Wilson, & Davis, 2009). Lexical frequency influences ERP at 110 ms, while word-pseudoword difference effects have been described near 160 ms after word-onset (Hauk, Davis, Ford, Pulvermüller, & Marslen-Wilson, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Naming Abilities and Orthographic Recognition during Childhood an Event-Related Brain Potentials Study

Gómez-Velázquez¹,

González-Garrido

Vega-Gutiérrez³

2013

IJPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Children with reading disabilities or dyslexia, commonly suffer disturbances in phonological awareness, slow-naming speed, and delayed automatic word recognition. A close relation between naming speed and reading difficulties has been well documented; hence, the former could be a useful early predictor of dyslexia. Reading disabled children usually show orthographic problems, but the neurophysiological basis underlying the detection of orthographic violations is still unclear. In this study, 28 healthy, right-handed, second-grade children were selected from a wider screening study and divided into two groups according to their performance on a rapid-naming test battery: slow-naming (SN) and average-naming (AN). Groups were matched by sex, age and school grade, and participants were asked to perform a visual recognition task that consisted of two stimuli: an easily-named drawing followed by a word that either matched (congruent) or did not match (on semantic or orthographic grounds) the drawing. Subjects were instructed to judge the relationship between each pair of stimuli and then press a key on a keyboard while ERP were being recorded. Behavioral results showed significant differences between groups in terms of the number of correct responses, but only for the orthographic violation condition, as no significant differences were observed in reaction times. In addition, SN showed poorer reading performance compared to AN. ERP were significantly different between the two groups during processing of visual words. Results are interpreted as the expression of the difficulties that SN manifested in generating strong associations between phonological and orthographic word forms.

show abstract

Can I have a quick word? Early electrophysiological manifestations of psycholinguistic processes revealed by event-related regression analysis of the EEG

Cited by 78 publications

References 53 publications

Heating up or cooling up the brain? MEG evidence that phrasal verbs are lexical units

Heating up or cooling up the brain? MEG evidence that phrasal verbs are lexical units

Lexical and sublexical orthographic processing: An ERP study with skilled and dyslexic adult readers

Naming Abilities and Orthographic Recognition during Childhood an Event-Related Brain Potentials Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About