Do morphemes matter when reading compound words with transposed letters? Evidence from eye-tracking and event-related potentials

Stites, Mallory C.; Federmeier, Kara D.; Christianson, Kiel

doi:10.1080/23273798.2016.1212082

Cited by 27 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 117 publications

(159 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, this study suggests that even when there is no space, transposition effects do not occur between lexical units. In a more recent study Stites, Federmeier, and Christianson (2016) embedded compound words in a sentence, and either presented these words correctly (e.g., cupcake ), with a letter transposed within a morpheme (e.g., cupacke ), or a letter transposed between morphemes (e.g., cucpake ). The letter transpositions remained even upon direct fixation.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is orthographic information from multiple parafoveal words processed in parallel: An eye-tracking study.

Cutter

Drieghe

Liversedge

2017

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the current study we investigated whether orthographic information available from 1 upcoming parafoveal word influences the processing of another parafoveal word. Across 2 experiments we used the boundary paradigm (Rayner, 1975) to present participants with an identity preview of the 2 words after the boundary (e.g., hot pan), a preview in which 2 letters were transposed between these words (e.g., hop tan), or a preview in which the same 2 letters were substituted (e.g., hob fan). We hypothesized that if these 2 words were processed in parallel in the parafovea then we may observe significant preview benefits for the condition in which the letters were transposed between words relative to the condition in which the letters were substituted. However, no such effect was observed, with participants fixating the words for the same amount of time in both conditions. This was the case both when the transposition was made between the final and first letter of the 2 words (e.g., hop tan as a preview of hot pan; Experiment 1) and when the transposition maintained within word letter position (e.g., pit hop as a preview of hit pop; Experiment 2). The implications of these findings are considered in relation to serial and parallel lexical processing during reading. Public Significance StatementThe findings of the present study suggest that readers of English only process letter information from 1 word at a time. Participants did not read any faster when 2 letters had been swapped between 2 upcoming words prior to participants looking directly at them (e.g., sit pea instead of sip tea) than when these same 2 letters had been replaced with alternative letters (e.g., six sea). These findings demonstrate that the human language processing system tends to identify words 1 at a time in serial order, rather than identifying multiple words at the same time.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is orthographic information from multiple parafoveal words processed in parallel: An eye-tracking study.

Cutter

Drieghe

Liversedge

2017

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The determination for this component was that the LPC component was typically within the 400–800 ms time window (Curran, 2000 ; Jang and Hyde, 2020 ), which varied with the processing manipulation and usually peaked after ~500 ms (Kim and Kim, 2006 ; Qiu et al, 2008 ; Beyersmanna et al, 2014 ). The LPC is usually thought to reflect more extensively explicit elaborate processing, such as semantic (Bouaffre and Faita-Ainseba, 2007 ; Tong et al, 2014 ; Zou et al, 2019 ), memory (Dunn, 1998 ; Evans and Federmeier, 2007 ; Strozak et al, 2016 ), and reconstruction (van de Meerendonk et al, 2011 ; Stites et al, 2016 ). As shown in Figures 3 , 4 , the typical LPC facilitation effects of canonical words were observed irrespective of the visual fields.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electrophysiological Correlates of Character Transposition in the Left and Right Visual Fields

Zhang

Lai

Li³

et al. 2021

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the brain activity elicited by the hemispheric asymmetries and morpheme transposition of two-character Chinese words (canonical and transposed word) and pseudowords using event-related potentials (ERPs) with a dual-target rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) task. Electrophysiological results showed facilitation effects for canonical words with centrally presented visual field (CVF) and right visual field (RVF) presentations but not with left visual field (LVF) presentations, as reflected by less negative N400 amplitudes. Moreover, more positive late positive component (LPC) amplitudes were observed for both canonical words and transposed words irrespective of the visual fields. More importantly, transposed words elicited a more negative N400 amplitude and a less positive LPC amplitude compared with the amplitudes elicited by canonical words for CVF and RVF presentations. For LVF presentations, transposed words elicited a less negative N250 amplitude compared with canonical words, and there was no significant difference between canonical words and transposed words in the N400 effect. Taken together, we concluded that character transposition facilitated the mapping of whole-word orthographic representation to semantic information in the LVF, as reflected by the N250 component, and such morpheme transposition influenced whole-word semantic processing in CVF and RVF presentations, as reflected by N400 and LPC components.

show abstract

“…Most models of lexical processing are based on monosyllabic words, like bark and paper , however, words cover a wide spectrum of morphological type and complexity, ranging from monomorphemic words to multimorphemic words. Despite wide acceptance that words are “decomposed” into their constituent morphemes when processing multimorphemic words, there is not a wide consensus on how or when this decomposition occurs ( Stites et al, 2016 ). When modeling the processing of more complex words such as compound words, the nature of the morphological representation needs to be established.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Number of Meanings and Number of Senses: An ERP Study of Sublexical Ambiguities in Reading Chinese Disyllabic Compounds

Huang

Lee

2018

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In English, an extensive body of work in both behavioral and neuropsychological domains has produced strong evidence that homonymy (words with many distinct meanings) and polysemy (many related senses) are represented, retrieved, and processed differently in the human brain. In Chinese, most words are compounds, and the constituent characters within a compound word can have different meanings and/or related senses on their own. Thus, in order to resolve lexical ambiguity in Chinese, one has to consider the composition of constituent characters, as well as how they contribute to whole word reading, known as “sublexical ambiguity.” This study investigates how two types of sublexical ambiguity affect Chinese word processing. The number of meanings (NOM) and the number of senses (NOS) corresponding to the first character of Chinese compounds were manipulated in a lexical decision task. The interactions between NOM and NOS were observed in both behavioral results and N400s, in which NOM disadvantage effect was found for words with few-senses only. On the other hand, the NOS facilitation effect was significant for words with multiple-meanings (NOM > 1) only. The sublexical ambiguity disadvantage suggested that semantically unrelated morphemes are represented as separate entries. For characters with multiple meanings, one orthographic form is associated with more than one morphemic representation. In contrast, the sublexical sense advantage supported the idea that semantically related senses that shared a morphological root are represented within a single entry. The more senses listed in a morphological root, the stronger representation will be formed. These results suggest that two types of sublexical ambiguities are represented and processed differently in Chinese word recognition models and also demonstrate that how they interact with each other in the mental lexicon.

show abstract

Do morphemes matter when reading compound words with transposed letters? Evidence from eye-tracking and event-related potentials

Cited by 27 publications

References 117 publications

Is orthographic information from multiple parafoveal words processed in parallel: An eye-tracking study.

Is orthographic information from multiple parafoveal words processed in parallel: An eye-tracking study.

Electrophysiological Correlates of Character Transposition in the Left and Right Visual Fields

Number of Meanings and Number of Senses: An ERP Study of Sublexical Ambiguities in Reading Chinese Disyllabic Compounds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About