Rapid Interactions between Lexical Semantic and Word Form Analysis during Word Recognition in Context: Evidence from ERPs

Abstract

Abstract■ We used ERPs to investigate the time course of interactions between lexical semantic and sublexical visual word form processing during word recognition. Participants read sentenceembedded pseudowords that orthographically resembled a contextually supported real word (e.g., "She measured the flour so she could bake a ceke…") or did not (e.g., "She measured the flour so she could bake a tont…") along with nonword consonant strings (e.g., "She measured the flour so she could bake a srdt…"). Pseudowords that resembled a contextually supported real word ("ceke") elicited an enhanced positivity at 130 msec (P130), relative to real words (e.g., "She measured the flour so she could bake a cake…"). Pseudowords that did not resemble a plausible real word ("tont") enhanced the N170 component, as did nonword consonant strings ("srdt"). The effect pattern shows that the visual word recognition system is, perhaps, counterintuitively, more rapidly sensitive to minor than to flagrant deviations from contextually predicted inputs. The findings are consistent with rapid interactions between lexical and sublexical representations during word recognition, in which rapid lexical access of a contextually supported word (CAKE) provides top-down excitation of form features ("cake"), highlighting the anomaly of an unexpected word "ceke." ■

Predicting form and meaning: Evidence from brain potentials

“…Newman and Connolly (2004) and Vissers, Chwilla, and Kolk (2006) found that pseudohomophones that were orthographically similar to highly predictable words (e.g., bouks for the predictable books) elicited larger LPCs than predictable words, but pseudohomophones that were orthographically similar to unpredictable words did not. Similarly, Laszlo and Federmeier (2009) and Kim and Lai (2012) reported a post-N400 LPC effect for pseudowords that were orthographically similar to the predicted words. Along with Vissers et al (2006), both sets of authors interpreted the effect as a detection of a conflict between predicted and actually encountered words.…”

“…1. We used only the posterior channels, where, consistent with the findings in previous literature (e.g., Kim & Lai, 2012;Laszlo & Federmeier, 2009), N400 and LPC effects had been maximal. For the semantic prediction reduced-N400 effect, we tested the effect of cloze value on the crucial difference between the semantic condition and the unrelated condition.…”

“…In a related study, Kim and Lai (2012) found no N400 effect for pseudowords that were orthographically similar to predictable words (e.g., ''She measured the flour so she could bake a ceke"), whereas dissimilar pseudowords (tont) elicited a clear N400 effect. Orthographically similar pseudowords elicited an enhanced P600, which was smaller than the P600 elicited by illegal strings (srdt).…”

“…the impact of prediction occurs before visual word recognition (because pseudowords cannot be recognized as words). Laszlo and Federmeier (2009) and Kim and Lai (2012) interpreted the respective reduced or absent N400 effects associated with orthographical overlap as evidence for pre-activation of orthographic information. However, both studies used high proportions of pseudowords and nonwords (54% in Laszlo & Federmeier, 2009;75% in Kim & Lai, 2012).…”

Wait a second! delayed impact of argument roles on on-line verb prediction

“…For example, listeners are more likely to direct their eye-gaze to a picture of an edible object (e.g., a cake) when they hear the beginning of an utterance like 'The boy will eat…' compared to a neutral utterance such as 'The boy will move…' (Altmann & Kamide, 1999). Further, much evidence has suggested that comprehenders compute rich expectations about upcoming inputs at multiple levels of representation (syntactic: Ilkin & Sturt, 2011;Lau, Stroud, Plesch, & Phillips, 2006;Levy, Fedorenko, Breen, & Gibson, 2012;Omaki et al, 2015;Staub & Clifton, 2006;Wicha et al, 2004;Van Berkum et al, 2005;Yoshida, Dickey, & Sturt, 2013;lexico-semantic: Federmeier & Kutas, 1999;Kutas & Hillyard, 1984;Otten & Van Berkum, 2008;Szewczyk & Schriefers, 2013; phonological and orthographic: Delong et al, 2005;Dikker, Rabagliati, Farmer, & Pylkkanen, 2010;Dikker, Rabagliati, & Pylkkänen, 2009;Farmer, Yan, Bicknell, & Tanenhaus, 2015;Kim & Lai, 2012;Laszlo & Federmeier, 2009). Here, we operationally define 'prediction' as the pre-activation of stored representations before the bottom-up input is encountered, and we will make no a priori assumptions regarding the nature of the mechanisms involved (e.g., whether they are automatic or controlled).…”