[Q:] When Would You Prefer a SOSSAGE to a SAUSAGE? [A:] At about 100 msec. ERP Correlates of Orthographic Typicality and Lexicality in Written Word Recognition

Hauk, Olaf; Patterson, Karalyn; Woollams, Anna M.; Watling, L.; Pulvermüller, Friedemann; Rogers, Timothy T.

doi:10.1162/jocn.2006.18.5.818

Cited by 136 publications

(126 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

105

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Rather we propose that the P150 is too early to be related to decision processes and more likely to reflect an early interaction of structural and lexico-semantic processes (e.g., Hauk et al, 2006b). …”

Section: Moreover Hofmann Et Al (2008) Reported Left Ag and Smg Actmentioning

confidence: 73%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Pseudohomophone effects provide evidence of early lexico‐phonological processing in visual word recognition

Braun¹,

Hutzler²,

Ziegler³

et al. 2008

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research using event-related brain potentials (ERPs) suggested that phonological processing in visual word recognition occurs rather late, typically after semantic or syntactic processing. Here we show that phonological activation in visual word recognition can be observed much earlier. Using a lexical decision task, we show that ERPs to pseudohomophones (e.g., ROZE) differed from well matched spelling controls (e.g., ROFE) as early as 150 ms (P150) after stimulus onset. The pseudohomophone effect occurred as early as the word frequency effect suggesting that phonological activation occurs early enough to influence lexical access. Low-resolution electromagnetic tomography analysis (LORETA) revealed that left temporo-parietal and right fronto-temporal areas are the likely brain regions associated with the processing of phonological information at the lexical level. Altogether, the results show that phonological processes are activated early in visual word recognition and play an important role in lexical access.

show abstract

Section: Moreover Hofmann Et Al (2008) Reported Left Ag and Smg Actmentioning

confidence: 73%

“…Hauk et al (2006b) reported early typicality and lexicality effects at about 100 and 160 ms. Maurer et al (2005) showed orthographic expertise effects at 170 ms.…”

Section: Orthographic and Phonological Processing In The Brainmentioning

confidence: 98%

Pseudohomophone effects provide evidence of early lexico‐phonological processing in visual word recognition

Braun¹,

Hutzler²,

Ziegler³

et al. 2008

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, shortcuts are by definition shorter than words; they are less frequent, have fewer orthographic and phonological neighbours, and have fewer semantic associations than words. All these factors are known to affect electrophysiological responses to written stimuli (e.g., Assadollahi and Pulvermüller, 2001;Hauk et al, 2006;Holcomb et al, 2002;Holcomb, Kounios, Anderson, & West, 1999;Kounios et al, 2009;Van Petten and Kutas, 1990). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electroencephalographic responses to SMS shortcuts

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the popularity of sending messages electronically increases, so does the necessity of conveying messages more efficiently. One way of increasing efficiency is to abbreviate words and expressions by combining letters with numbers such as gr8 for "great," using acronyms, such as lol for "laughing out loud," or clippings such as msg for "message." The present study compares the processing of shortcuts to the processing of closely matched pseudo-shortcuts. ERPs were recorded while participants were performing a lexical decision task. Response times showed that shortcuts were categorized more slowly as nonwords than pseudo-shortcuts. The ERP results showed no differences between shortcuts and pseudo-shortcuts at time windows 50-150 ms and 150-270 ms, but there were significant differences between 270 and 500 ms. These results suggest that at early stages of word recognition, the orthographic and phonological processing is similar for shortcuts and pseudo-shortcuts. However, at the time of lexical access, shortcuts diverge from pseudoshortcuts, suggesting that shortcuts activate stored lexical representations.© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords:SMS shortcuts N400 Lexical decision task IntroductionThe idea of Short Message Service (SMS) was born as part of the development of the Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) network in the mid-1980s (Crystal, 2008). SMS had a slow start with only 0.4 text messages per month being sent in the late 1990s, but at the beginning of 2001, about 12.2 billion messages per year were sent in the United Kingdom alone (Crystal, 2008). Gartner, the industry analysts, predicted that the total number of SMS sent per year would reach 2.4 trillion by 2010 (Crystal, 2008). As the popularity of sending SMS and communicating online increased, numerous abbreviations were introduced to facilitate the generation of messages. Some abbreviations are combinations of letters and numbers, such as gr8 for great, others are acronyms, such as lol for laughing out loud, yet others are clippings, such as msg for message. These abbreviations can now also be found in poetry and spoken communication, and there are even prizes for the best SMS message (e.g., the Golden Thumb). Early use of SMS is related to children's literacy development, as studies have shown that the more text abbreviations preteenage children use in their text messages, the higher they score on tests for reading and vocabulary (Plester et al., 2008). Despite their popularity, very little is known about the processing of shortcuts. Using shortcuts is efficient and convenient for the sender of the message. However, is it also beneficial for the reader? It had been shown that reading sentences that consisted almost exclusively of SMS language was slower than reading conventionally written sentences (Berger and Coch, 2010;Perea et al., 2009).However, when shortcuts are used sparingly in a sentence, they appear to cause difficulties only in early stages of word

show abstract

“…Using magnetoencephalography (MEG), Pulvermüller et al (2005a) revealed a short-lived somatotopic activity in motor cortex while participants were listening to face-and leg-related action words. This activity was observed within 170 to 200 ms post word onset, which is the time-window within which early lexico-semantic effects typically occur (Hauk et al, 2006;Pulvermüller et al, 1999a;Preissl et al, 1995;Sereno et al, 1998;Sereno & Rayner, 2003). Given this critical delay, the authors suggested that cortical motor regions could be involved in action word retrieval and may thus be essential to (action) language understanding (for a summary of this idea, see Pulvermüller, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Subliminal display of action words interferes with motor planning: A combined EEG and kinematic study

Boulenger

Silber

Roy

et al. 2008

Journal of Physiology-Paris

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent evidence has shown that processing action-related language and motor action share common neural representations to a point that the two processes can interfere when performed concurrently. To support the assumption that language-induced motor activity contributes to action word understanding, the present study aimed at ruling out that this activity results from mental imagery of the movements depicted by the words. For this purpose, we examined cross-talk between action word processing and an arm reaching movement, using words that were presented too fast to be consciously perceived (subliminally). Encephalogram (EEG) and movement kinematics were recorded. EEG recordings of the "Readiness Potential" ("RP", indicator of motor preparation) revealed that subliminal displays of action verbs during movement preparation reduced the RP and affected the subsequent reaching movement. The finding that motor processes were modulated by language processes despite the fact that words were not consciously perceived, suggests that cortical structures that serve the preparation and execution of motor actions are indeed part of the (action) language processing network.

show abstract

[Q:] When Would You Prefer a SOSSAGE to a SAUSAGE? [A:] At about 100 msec. ERP Correlates of Orthographic Typicality and Lexicality in Written Word Recognition

Cited by 136 publications

References 63 publications

Pseudohomophone effects provide evidence of early lexico‐phonological processing in visual word recognition

Pseudohomophone effects provide evidence of early lexico‐phonological processing in visual word recognition

Electroencephalographic responses to SMS shortcuts

Subliminal display of action words interferes with motor planning: A combined EEG and kinematic study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About