Word-specific Repetition Effects Revealed by MEG and the Implications for Lexical Access

Overview

Journal Brain Lang

Publisher Elsevier

Specialties Neurology
Otorhinolaryngology
Psychiatry

Date 2013 Nov 5

PMID 24182838

Citations 11

Authors

Diogo Almeida

David Poeppel

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

This magnetoencephalography (MEG) study investigated the early stages of lexical access in reading, with the goal of establishing when initial contact with lexical information takes place. We identified two candidate evoked responses that could reflect this processing stage: the occipitotemporal N170/M170 and the frontocentral P2. Using a repetition priming paradigm in which long and variable lags were used to reduce the predictability of each repetition, we found that (i) repetition of words, but not pseudowords, evoked a differential bilateral frontal response in the 150-250ms window, (ii) a differential repetition N400m effect was observed between words and pseudowords. We argue that this frontal response, an MEG correlate of the P2 identified in ERP studies, reflects early access to long-term memory representations, which we tentatively characterize as being modality-specific.

Citing Articles

A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study of Phrase Structure and Subject Island Violations.

Matchin W, Almeida D, Hickok G, Sprouse J J Cogn Neurosci. 2024; 37(2):414-442.

PMID: 39509099 PMC: 11753796. DOI: 10.1162/jocn_a_02266.

An early effect of the parafoveal preview on post-saccadic processing of English words.

Melcher D, Alaberkyan A, Anastasaki C, Liu X, Deodato M, Marsicano G Atten Percept Psychophys. 2024; 87(1):94-119.

PMID: 38956003 PMC: 11845564. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-024-02916-4.

An fMRI study of phrase structure and subject island violations.

Matchin W, Almeida D, Hickok G, Sprouse J bioRxiv. 2024; .

PMID: 38746262 PMC: 11092748. DOI: 10.1101/2024.05.05.592579.

Memory for affixes in a long-lag priming paradigm.

Gaston P, Stockall L, VanWagenen S, Marantz A Glossa. 2023; 6(1).

PMID: 37994357 PMC: 10664832. DOI: 10.16995/glossa.5735.

Reduction or enhancement? Repetition effects on early brain potentials during visual word recognition are frequency dependent.

Hsu C, Lee C Front Psychol. 2023; 14:994903.

PMID: 37228333 PMC: 10203508. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.994903.

References

Meyler A, Breznitz Z . Impaired phonological and orthographic word representations among adult dyslexic readers: evidence from event-related potentials. J Genet Psychol. 2005; 166(2):215-38. DOI: 10.3200/GNTP.166.2.215-240. View

Maurer U, Brandeis D, McCandliss B . Fast, visual specialization for reading in English revealed by the topography of the N170 ERP response. Behav Brain Funct. 2005; 1:13. PMC: 1208852. DOI: 10.1186/1744-9081-1-13. View

Karniski W, Blair R, Snider A . An exact statistical method for comparing topographic maps, with any number of subjects and electrodes. Brain Topogr. 1994; 6(3):203-10. DOI: 10.1007/BF01187710. View

Laszlo S, Federmeier K . Minding the PS, queues, and PXQs: uniformity of semantic processing across multiple stimulus types. Psychophysiology. 2008; 45(3):458-66. PMC: 2704151. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00636.x. View

Fujimaki N, Hayakawa T, Ihara A, Wei Q, Munetsuna S, Terazono Y . Early neural activation for lexico-semantic access in the left anterior temporal area analyzed by an fMRI-assisted MEG multidipole method. Neuroimage. 2008; 44(3):1093-102. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.10.021. View

Petten C, Kutas M, Kluender R, Mitchiner M, McIsaac H . Fractionating the word repetition effect with event-related potentials. J Cogn Neurosci. 2013; 3(2):131-50. DOI: 10.1162/jocn.1991.3.2.131. View

Van Petten C, Kutas M . Interactions between sentence context and word frequency in event-related brain potentials. Mem Cognit. 1990; 18(4):380-93. DOI: 10.3758/bf03197127. View

Embick D, Hackl M, Schaeffer J, Kelepir M, Marantz A . A magnetoencephalographic component whose latency reflects lexical frequency. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2001; 10(3):345-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0926-6410(00)00053-7. View

Chwilla D, Brown C, Hagoort P . The N400 as a function of the level of processing. Psychophysiology. 1995; 32(3):274-85. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1995.tb02956.x. View

10.

Compton P, Grossenbacher P, Posner M, Tucker D . A cognitive-anatomical approach to attention in lexical access. J Cogn Neurosci. 2013; 3(4):304-12. DOI: 10.1162/jocn.1991.3.4.304. View

11.

Kutas M, Neville H, Holcomb P . A preliminary comparison of the N400 response to semantic anomalies during reading, listening and signing. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol Suppl. 1987; 39:325-30. View

12.

Sekiguchi T, Koyama S, Kakigi R . The effect of stimulus repetition on cortical magnetic responses evoked by words and nonwords. Neuroimage. 2001; 14(1 Pt 1):118-28. DOI: 10.1006/nimg.2001.0774. View

13.

Brysbaert M, New B . Moving beyond Kucera and Francis: a critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behav Res Methods. 2009; 41(4):977-90. DOI: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.977. View

14.

Lau E, Phillips C, Poeppel D . A cortical network for semantics: (de)constructing the N400. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2008; 9(12):920-33. DOI: 10.1038/nrn2532. View

15.

Curran T, Dien J . Differentiating amodal familiarity from modality-specific memory processes: an ERP study. Psychophysiology. 2004; 40(6):979-88. PMC: 1413574. DOI: 10.1111/1469-8986.00116. View

16.

Desmedt J, Chalklin V . New method for titrating differences in scalp topographic patterns in brain evoked potential mapping. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1989; 74(5):359-66. DOI: 10.1016/0168-5597(89)90003-8. View

17.

Marinkovic K, Dhond R, Dale A, Glessner M, Carr V, Halgren E . Spatiotemporal dynamics of modality-specific and supramodal word processing. Neuron. 2003; 38(3):487-97. PMC: 3746792. DOI: 10.1016/s0896-6273(03)00197-1. View

18.

Bowers J . Different perceptual codes support priming for words and pseudowords: was Morton right all along?. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1996; 22(6):1336-53. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.22.6.1336. View

19.

Wagenmakers E, Zeelenberg R, Steyvers M, Shiffrin R, Raaijmakers J . Nonword repetition in lexical decision: support for two opposing processes. Q J Exp Psychol A. 2004; 57(7):1191-210. DOI: 10.1080/02724980343000729. View

20.

Hauk O, Davis M, Ford M, Pulvermuller F, Marslen-Wilson W . The time course of visual word recognition as revealed by linear regression analysis of ERP data. Neuroimage. 2006; 30(4):1383-400. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.11.048. View