When less is more: Feedback, priming, and the pseudoword superiority effect

Massol, Stéphanie; Midgley, K.; Holcomb, P. J.; Grainger, J.

doi:10.1037/e512592013-686

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The N400, on the other hand, is thought to reflect activity related to the mapping of whole‐word form representations onto semantic representations, at least in experiments using single words rather than sentences. Although the results of prior research suggest that feedback from frequency‐sensitive whole‐word representations can influence N250 amplitude (e.g., Massol, Midgley, Holcomb, & Grainger ; Midgley, Holcomb, & Grainger, ; Morris, Franck, Grainger, & Holcomb, ), the bulk of such lexical influences is expected to be seen in the beginning of the N400 time window.…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

How word frequency modulates masked repetition priming: An ERP investigation

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study used ERPs to provide precise temporal information about the modulation of masked repetition priming effects by word frequency during the course of target word recognition. Contrary to the pattern seen with behavioral response times in prior research, we predicted that high-frequency words should generate larger and earlier peaking repetition priming effects than low-frequency words in the N400 time window. This prediction was supported by the results of two experiments. Furthermore, repetition priming effects in the N250 time window were found for low-frequency words in both experiments, whereas for high-frequency words these effects were only seen at the shorter (50 ms) SOA used in Experiment 2, and not in Experiment 1 (70 ms SOA). We explain this pattern as resulting from reset mechanisms operating on the form representations activated by prime stimuli when primes and targets are processed as separate perceptual events.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 94%

How word frequency modulates masked repetition priming: An ERP investigation

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hence, when the N250 component appears, size and shape invariance have already been achieved, and this can be interpreted as further evidence of access to abstract orthographic representations. Recent research has shown that the N250 amplitude can also be modulated by lexical factors (Duñabeitia, Molinaro, Laka, Estévez, & Carreiras, 2009;Massol, Midgley, Holcomb, & Grainger, 2011;Morris, Franck, Grainger, & Holcomb, 2007), reflecting the interaction between prelexical bottom-up and lexical-semantic topdown representations (Morris et al, 2007).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Lexical enhancement during prime–target integration: ERP evidence from matched-case identity priming

Vergara-Martínez

Gómez

Jiménez

et al. 2014

Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A number of experiments have revealed that matched-case identity PRIME-TARGET pairs are responded to faster than mismatched-case identity prime-TARGET pairs for pseudowords (e.g., JUDPE-JUDPE < judpe-JUDPE), but not for words (JUDGE-JUDGE = judge-JUDGE). These findings suggest that prime-target integration processes are enhanced when the stimuli tap onto lexical representations, overriding physical differences between the stimuli (e.g., case). To track the time course of this phenomenon, we conducted an event-related potential (ERP) masked-priming lexical decision experiment that manipulated matched versus mismatched case identity in words and pseudowords. The behavioral results replicated previous research. The ERP waves revealed that matched-case identity-priming effects were found at a very early time epoch (N/P150 effects) for words and pseudowords. Importantly, around 200 ms after target onset (N250), these differences disappeared for words but not for pseudowords. These findings suggest that different-case word forms (lower-and uppercase) tap into the same abstract representation, leading to prime-target integration very early in processing. In contrast, different-case pseudoword forms are processed as two different representations. This word-pseudoword dissociation has important implications for neural accounts of visual-word recognition.Keywords Masked priming . ERP correlates . N250 . Visual-word recognition Despite the variability in physical appearance of a written word (e.g., house, HOUSE, house), skilled readers are able to access the appropriate lexical entry in a few hundreds of milliseconds. When and how the stimulus features are coded in an abstract manner are the main questions in this article. These are not trivial issues, since this process of abstraction might take place at an individual-letter level, at a graphemic level, at a whole-word level, or even at a semantic level. To make matters even more complex, feedforward and feedback connections might also exist among the levels.There is some consensus among researchers that a word's constituent letters are coded in an abstract form that is independent of its physical features (see Bowers, 2000, andThompson, 2009, for reviews). Although initially the wordprocessing system is sensitive to differences in the visual features of stimuli, these differences are quickly diffused by mapping these features onto unique orthographic abstract representations (see Dehaene, Cohen, Sigman, &Vinckier, 2005, andGrainger, Rey, &Dufau, 2008, for neurally motivated accounts of this phenomenon). The assumption that abstract representations are rapidly accessible during visualword recognition has come mainly from previous experimental evidence using the masked-priming technique (Forster & Davis, 1984; see Grainger, 2008, for a review; see Dehaene et al

show abstract

“…The N400 pronounceability effect we observed seems more in line with this interpretation. Pronounceable nonwords typically show larger N400s than words ( Massol et al, 2011 ). Therefore, if unpronounceable nonwords are autocorrected and treated as words, they should have smaller amplitude N400s compared to pronounceable nonwords.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, we might expect group differences in N250 effects if pronounceability effects are tied to phonotactics. In addition, pronounceable nonwords show a larger N400 compared to fully unpronounceable nonwords (e.g, consonant strings) in hearing readers ( Massol et al, 2011 ). If this effect is driven by orthography, deaf and hearing readers should show similar N400 effects, but if it is driven by phonology, then deaf readers may show reduced or no modulation in N400 amplitude based on nonword pronounceability.…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%