Dual-route processing of complex words: New fMRI evidence from derivational suffixation

Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 67-76

  Vannest, Jennifer ^a   Polk, Thad A ^b   Lewis, Richard L ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BASAL GANGLION; FEMALE; FRONTAL CORTEX; FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; MENTAL PERFORMANCE; NEUROPSYCHOLOGY; NORMAL HUMAN; TASK PERFORMANCE; VERBAL MEMORY; WORD RECOGNITION; ADOLESCENT; BRAIN; BRAIN MAPPING; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPREHENSION; HISTOLOGY; IMAGE PROCESSING; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; MEMORY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PHYSIOLOGY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; BRAIN; BRAIN MAPPING; COMPREHENSION; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; LANGUAGE; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MEMORY; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS;

EID: 21244438398     PISSN: 15307026     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/CABN.5.1.67     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. AGUIRRE, G. K., ZARAHN, E., & D'ESPOSITO, M. (1998). The variability of human, BOLD hemodynamic responses. NeuroImage, 8, 360-369.
2. ALEGRE, M., & GORDON, P. (1999). Frequency effects and the representational status of regular inflections. Journal of Memory & Language, 40, 41-61.
3. BAAYEN, R. H., DIJKSTRA, T., & SCHREUDER, R. (1997). Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual-route model. Journal of Memory & Language. 37, 94-117.
4. BADECKER, W., & CARAMAZZA, A. (1991). Morphological composition in the lexical output system. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 8, 335-367.
5. BADECKER, W., RAPP, B., & CARAMAZZA, A. (1996). Lexical morphology and the two orthographic routes. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 13, 161-175.
6. BERETTA, A., CAMPBELL, C., CARR, T., HUANG, J., SCHMITT, L., CHRISTIANSON, K., & CAO, Y. (2003). An ER-fMRI investigation of morphological inflection in German reveals that the brain makes a distinction between regular and irregular forms. Brain & Language. 85, 67-92.
7. BERTRAM, R., SCHREUDER, R., & BAAYEN, R. H. (2000). The balance of storage and computation in morphological processing: The role of word formation type, affixal homonymy, and productivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning. Memory, & Cognition, 26, 489-511.
8. BRADLEY, D. (1980). Lexical representation of derivational relation. In M. Aronoff & M.-L. Kean (Eds.), Juncture (pp. 37-55). Saratoga, CA: Anma Libri.
9. CARAMAZZA, A., LAUDANNA, A., & ROMANI, C. (1988). Lexical access and inflectional morphology. Cognition, 28, 297-332.
10. DAVIS, M., MEUNIER, F., & MARSLEN-WILSON, W. (2004). Neural responses to morphological, syntactic, and semantic properties of single words: An fMRI study. Brain & Language, 89, 439-449.
11. FIEZ, J. A., BALOTA, D. A., RAICHLE, M. E., & PETERSEN, S. E. (1999). The effects of word frequency and spelling-to-sound consistency on the functional anatomy of reading. Neuron, 24, 205-218.
12. HAGIWARA, H., ITO, T., SUGIOKA, Y., KAWAMURA, M., & SHIOTA, J. (1999). Neurolinguistic evidence for rule-based nominal suffixation. Language, 75, 739-763.
13. HALLE, M., & MARANTZ, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 111-176). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. HAY, J. (2000). Causes and consequences of word structure. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University.
15. ITO, T., SUGIOKA, Y., & HAGIWARA, T. (1996). Psychological status of rules in derivational morphology: Evidence from Japanese nominal suffixation. Metropolitan Linguistics, 16, 18-30.
16. JAEGER, J., LOCKWOOD, A., KEMMERER, D., VAN VALIN, R., JR., MURPHY, B., & KHALAK, H. (1996). A positron emission tomographic study of regular and irregular verb morphology in English. Language, 72, 451-497.
17. JAEGER, J., VAN VALIN, R., JR., & LOCKWOOD, A. (1998). Response to Seidenberg and Hoeffner. Language, 74, 123-128.
18. JOANISSE, M. F., & SEIDENBERG, M. S. (1999). Impairments in verb morphology after brain injury: A connectionist model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 96, 7592-7597.
19. KELLER, T. A., CARPENTER, P. A., & JUST, M. A. (2001). The neural bases of sentence comprehension: A fMRI examination of syntactic and lexical processing. Cerebral Cortex, 11, 223-237.
20. KIPARSKY, P. (1982). Lexical morphology and phonology. In I.-S. Yang (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 3-91). Seoul: Hanshin.
21. LAINE, M., RINNE, J., KRAUSE, B., TERAS, M., & SIPILA, H. (1999). Left hemisphere activation during processing of morphologically complex word forms in adults. Neuroscience Letters, 271, 85-88.
22. MOHANAN, K. (1986). The theory of lexical phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.
23. NIEMI, J., LAINE, M., & TUOMINEN, J. (1994). Cognitive morphology in Finnish: Foundations of a new model. Language & Cognitive Processes, 9, 423-446.
24. RAVEH, M. (2002). The contribution of frequency and semantic similarity to morphological processing. Brain & Language, 81, 312-325.
25. RUECKL, J. G., MIKOLINSKI, M., RAVEH, M., MINER, C. S., & MARS, F. (1997). Morphological priming, fragment completion, and connectionist networks. Journal of Memory & Language, 36, 382-405.
26. RUECKL, J. G., & RAVEH, M. (1999). The influence of morphological regularities on the dynamics of a connectionist network. Brain & Language, 68, 110-117.
27. SCHREUDER, R., & BAAYEN, R. H. (1995). Modeling morphological processing. In L. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 131-154). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
28. SEIDENBERG, M. S., & GONNERMAN, L. M. (2000). Explaining derivational morphology as the convergence of codes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 353-361.
29. SEIDENBERG, M. S., & HOEFFNER, J. H. (1998). Evaluating behavioral and neuroimaging data on past tense processing. Language, 74, 104-122.
30. SHAPIRO, K., SHELTON, J., & CARAMAZZA, A. (2000). Grammatical class in lexical production and morphological processing: Evidence from a case of fluent aphasia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 17, 665-682.
31. TAFT, M. (1979). Recognition of affixed words and the word frequency effect. Memory & Cognition, 7, 263-272.
32. ULLMAN, M. T. (2001). The declarative/procedural model of lexicon and grammar. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 37-69.
33. ULLMAN, M. T. (2004). Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition, 92, 231-270.
34. ULLMAN, M. [T.], CORKIN, S., COPPOLA, M., HICKOK, G., GROWDON, J. H., KOROSHETZ, W. J., & PINKER. S. (1997). A neural dissociation within language: Evidence that the mental dictionary is part of declarative memory, and that grammatical rules are processed by the procedural system. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 266-276.
35. VANNEST, J., BERTRAM, R., JARVIKIVI, J., & NIEMI, J. (2002). Counter-intuitive cross-linguistic differences: More morphological computation in English than in Finnish. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 31, 83-106.
36. VANNEST, J., & BOLAND, J. (1999). Lexical morphology and lexical access. Brain & Language, 68, 324-332.
37. WOODS, R. P., GRAFTON, S. T., HOLMES, C. J., CHERRY, S. R., & MAZZIOTTA, J. C. (1998). Automated image registration: 1. General methods and intrasubject, intramodality validation. Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography, 22, 139-152.
38. WORSLEY, K. J., & FRISTON, K. J. (1995). Analysis of fMRI time series revisited-again. NeuroImage, 2, 173-181.
39. WURM, L. (1997). Auditory processing of prefixed English words is both continuous and decompositional. Unpublished manuscript. SUNY, Stony Brook.
40. ZARAHN, E., AGUIRRE, G. K., & D'Esposito, M. (1997). Empirical analyses of BOLD fMRI statistics: 1. Spatially unsmoothed data collected under null-hypothesis conditions. NeuroImage, 5, 179-197.