Not every pseudoword disrupts word recognition: An ERP study

Behavioral and Brain Functions

Volumn 2, Issue , 2006, Pages

  Friedrich, Claudia K ^a,b   Eulitz, Carsten ^a   Lahiri, Aditi ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KONSTANZ   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HAMBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; CONSONANT; CONTROLLED STUDY; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; NEUROPHYSIOLOGY; NORMAL HUMAN; PHONATION; PHONETICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESPONSE TIME; SEMANTICS; SPEECH ANALYSIS; SPEECH ARTICULATION; WORD RECOGNITION;

EID: 33750940373     PISSN: 17449081     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1744-9081-2-36     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. McQueen JM: Speech perception. In The handbook of cognition Edited by: Lamberts K, Goldstone R. London: Sage Publications; 2004:255-275.
2. Lahiri A, Marslen-Wilson WD: The mental representation of lexical form: A phonological approach to the recognition lexicon. Cognition 1991, 38:245-294.
3. Lahiri A, Marslen-Wilson WD: Lexical processing and phonological representation. In Papers in Laboratory Phonology II Edited by: Docherty GJ, Ladd DR. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1992:229-254.
4. Lahiri A, Reetz H: Underspecified recognition. In Laboratory Phonology VII Edited by. Gussenhoven C, Werner N. Berlin: Mouton; 2002:637-675.
5. Gaskell MG, Marslen-Wilson WD: Phonological variation and inference in lexical access. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 1996, 22:144-158.
6. Gaskell MG, Marslen-Wilson WD: Mechanisms of phonological inference in speech perception. J. Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 1998, 24:380-396.
7. Coenen E, Zwitserlood P, Bölte J: Variation and assimilation in German: Consequences for lexical access and representation. Lang Cognitive Proc 2001, 16:535-564.
8. Gow DW: Assimilation and anticipation in continuous spoken word recognition. J Mem Lang 2001, 45:133-159.
9. Gow DW: Does English coronal place assimilation create lexical ambiguity? J Exp Psychol Human 2002, 28:163-179.
10. Gow DW: Feature parsing: Feature cue mapping in spoken word recognition. Percept Psychophys 2003, 65:575-590.
11. Mitterer H, Blomert L: Coping with phonological assimilation in speech perception: Evidence for early compensation. Percept Psychophys 2003, 65:956-969.
12. Mitterer H, Csepe V, Honbolygo F, Blomert L: The recognition of phonologically assimilated words does not depend on specific language experience. Cogn Sci 2006, 30:451-479.
13. Wheeldon L, Waksler R: Phonological underspecification and mapping mechanisms in the speech recognition lexicon. Brain Lang 2004, 90:401-412.
14. Gumnior H, Zwitserlood P, Bölte J: Assimilation in existing and novel German compounds. Lang Cognitive Proc 2005, 20:465-488.
15. Weber A: Help or hindrance: How violation of different assimilation rules affects spoken-language processing. Lang Speech 2001, 44:94-117.
16. Weber A: Assimilation violation in spoken-language processing: A supplementary report. Lang Speech 2003, 45:37-46.
17. Näätänen R: The perception of speech sounds by the human brain as reflected by the mismatch negativity (MMN) and its magnetic equivalent (MMNm). Psychophysiology 2001, 38:1-21.
18. Eulitz C, Lahiri A: Neurobiological evidence for abstract phonological representations in the mental lexicon during speech recognition. J Cogn Neurosci 2004, 16:577-583.
19. Kutas M, Hillyard SA: Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science 1980, 207:203-205.
20. Kutas M, Federmeier K: Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends Cogn Sci 2000, 4:463-470.
21. Attias J, Pratt H: Auditory event related potentials during lexical categorization in the oddball paradigm. Brain Lang 1992, 4:230-239.
22. Bentin S: Event-related potentials, semantic processes, and expectancy factors in word recognition. Brain Lang 1987, 31:308-327.
23. Picton TW, Hillyard SA: Endogenous event-related potentials. In Human Event-related Potentials. EEG-Handbook Volume 3. Edited by: Picton TW. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1988:361-426.
24. Soares I, Collet L, Duclaux R: Electrophysiological correlates of auditory lexical decision: An attempt to test the 'Cohort model'. Int J Neurosci 1991, 57:111-122.
25. Supp GG, Schlögl A, Gunter TC, Bernard M, Pfurtschneller G, Petsche H: Lexical memory search during N400: Cortical couplings in auditory comprehension. NeuroReport 2004, 15:1209-1213.
26. Helenius P, Salmelin R, Service E, Connolly JF: Semantic cortical activation in dyslexic readers. J Cogn Neurosci 1999, 11:535-550.
27. Simos PG, Basile LF, Papnicolaou AC: Source localization of the N400 response in a sentence-reading paradigm using evoked magnetic fields and magnetic resonance imaging. Brain Res 1997, 762:29-39.
28. Nobre AC, McCarthy G: Language-related ERPs: Scalp distributions and modulation by word type and semantic priming. J Cogn Neurosci 1994, 6:233-255.
29. Hagoort P, Brown CM: ERP effects of listening to speech: Semantic ERP effects. Neuropsychologia 2000, 38:1518-1530.
30. van den Brink D, Brown CM, Hagoort P: Electrophysiological evidence for early contextual influences during spoken-word recognition: N200 versus N400 effects. J Cogn Neurosci 2001, 13:967-985.
31. van den Brink D, Brown CM, Hagoort P: The cascaded nature of lexical selection and integration in auditory sentence processing. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 2006, 32:364-372.
32. Van Petten C, Coulson S, Rubin S, Plante E, Parks M: Time course of word identification and semantic integration in spoken language. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 1999, 25:394-417.
33. O'Rourke TB, Holcomb PJ: Electrophysiological evidence for the efficiency of spoken word processing. Biol Psychol 2002, 60:121-150.
34. Oldfield RC: The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 1971, 9:97-113.
35. [http://wortschatz.uni-leipzig.de].
36. Holcomb PJ, Grainger J, O'Rourke T: An electrophysiological study of the effects of orthographic neighborhood size on printed word perception. J Cogn Neurosci 2002, 14:938-950.
37. Baayen H, Piepenbrock R, Van Rijn H: The CELEX lexical database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium; 1993.
38. Vitevitch MS, Luce PA: Probabilistic phonotactics and neighborhood activation in spoken word recognition. J Mem Lang 1999, 40:374-408.
39. Holcomb PJ, Neville HJ: Auditory and visual semantic processing. A comparison using event-related brain potentials. Lang Cognitive Proc 1990, 5:281-312.
40. Marslen-Wilson W, Warren P: Levels of perceptual representation and process in lexical access: Words, phonemes and features. Psychol Rev 1994, 101:653-675.
41. Goldinger SD: Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychol Rev 1998, 105:251-279.
42. McClelland JL, Elman JL: The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognit Psychol 1986, 18:1-86.
43. Norris D: Shortlist: A connectionist model of continuous speech recognition. Cognition 1994, 52:189-234.
44. Luce PA, Pisoni D: Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear Hear 1998, 19:1-36.
45. Obleser J, Eulitz C, Lahiri A: Magnetic brain response mirrors extraction of phonological features from spoken vowels. J Cogn Neurosci 2004, 16:31-39.
46. Obleser J, Elbert T, Lahiri A, Eulitz C: Cortical representation of vowels reflects acoustic dissimilarity determined by formant frequencies. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 2003, 15:207-213.
47. Obleser J, Lahiri A, Eulitz C: Auditory-evoked magnetic field codes place of articulation in timing and topography around 100 milliseconds post syllable onset. Neuroimage 2003, 20:1839-1847.