2011
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2010.01058.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The N400 as a snapshot of interactive processing: Evidence from regression analyses of orthographic neighbor and lexical associate effects

Abstract: Linking print with meaning tends to be divided into subprocesses, such as recognition of an input's lexical entry and subsequent access of semantics. However, recent results suggest that the set of semantic features activated by an input is broader than implied by a view wherein access serially follows recognition. EEG was collected from participants who viewed items varying in number and frequency of both orthographic neighbors and lexical associates. Regression analysis of single item ERPs replicated past fi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

18
220
1
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 167 publications
(241 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
18
220
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Larger N400 amplitudes have been found for concrete than for abstract words (Barber et al, 2013;Holcomb, Kounios, Anderson & West, 1999;Kanske & Kotz, 2007;West & Holcomb, 2000). Larger N400 amplitudes have also been reported for words with many semantic features or associates than for those with few semantic features or associates (Amsel, 2011;Laszlo & Federmeier, 2011;Müller, Duñabeitia, & Carreiras, 2010;Rabovsky et al, 2012; but see Amsel &Cree, 2013, andKounios, Green, Payne, Grondin, &McRae, 2009, for an opposite pattern due to explicit semantic task demands). ERP effects related to semantic richness have been found to be distributed over anterior scalp electrodes (concreteness effects: Adorni & Proverbio, 2012;Barber et al, 2013;Holcomb et al, 1999;Kanske & Kotz, 2007;West & Holcomb, 2000;semantic richness: Amsel, 2011;Müller et al, 2010; but see Rabovsky et al, 2012, for centroparietal localization of semantic richness effects).…”
mentioning
confidence: 90%
“…Larger N400 amplitudes have been found for concrete than for abstract words (Barber et al, 2013;Holcomb, Kounios, Anderson & West, 1999;Kanske & Kotz, 2007;West & Holcomb, 2000). Larger N400 amplitudes have also been reported for words with many semantic features or associates than for those with few semantic features or associates (Amsel, 2011;Laszlo & Federmeier, 2011;Müller, Duñabeitia, & Carreiras, 2010;Rabovsky et al, 2012; but see Amsel &Cree, 2013, andKounios, Green, Payne, Grondin, &McRae, 2009, for an opposite pattern due to explicit semantic task demands). ERP effects related to semantic richness have been found to be distributed over anterior scalp electrodes (concreteness effects: Adorni & Proverbio, 2012;Barber et al, 2013;Holcomb et al, 1999;Kanske & Kotz, 2007;West & Holcomb, 2000;semantic richness: Amsel, 2011;Müller et al, 2010; but see Rabovsky et al, 2012, for centroparietal localization of semantic richness effects).…”
mentioning
confidence: 90%
“…Spreading of word-related semantic priming, a process indexed by N400, is also known to operate without conscious control (Kiefer, 2002). In general, in their comprehensive review on N400, Kutas and Federmeier (2011) summarize that "…N400 region of the ERP is more accurately described as reflecting the activity in a multimodal long-term memory system that is induced by a given stimulus during a delimited time window as meaning is dynamically constructed" (boldface added), (see also Laszlo and Federmeier, 2011).…”
Section: Relevant Eeg Components and Expected Outcomesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The "hard" words had a K-F frequency below 10 (mean = 3.4) and an AOA above 450 (mean = 555.5). Pseudowords were 3 letter pronounceable strings, chosen to vary in their number of orthographic neighbors (words that differ in spelling by only one letter), since EEG data (specifically, event related potentials) are sensitive to neighborhood size [12]. The isolated-item section also presented ten illegal 3-character strings to read silently, also with varying orthographic neighborhood sizes, also from the same study; the read-aloud condition omitted illegal strings because they are unpronounceable.…”
Section: Can Eeg Detect Lexical Features?mentioning
confidence: 99%