Consonants and vowels contribute differently to visual word recognition: ERPs of relative position priming

Cerebral Cortex

Volumn 19, Issue 11, 2009, Pages 2659-2670

  Carreiras, Manuel ^a,b   Duñabeitia, Jon Andoni ^b   Molinaro, Nicola ^b  

^a BASQUE CENTER ON COGNITION   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSIDAD DE LA LAGUNA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Consonants and vowels; ERPs; Letter processing; Relative position coding; Visual word recognition

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONSONANT; CONTROLLED STUDY; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; EVOKED VISUAL RESPONSE; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEMANTIC MEMORY; TASK PERFORMANCE; VOWEL; WORD RECOGNITION;

BRAIN; CUES; EVOKED POTENTIALS, VISUAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MENTAL RECALL; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; READING; SEMANTICS; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 70349932455     PISSN: 10473211     EISSN: 14602199     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhp019     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Allen PA, Wallace B, Weber TA. 1995. Influence of case type, word frequency, and exposure duration on visual word recognition. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 21:914-934.
2. Barber H, Kutas M. 2007. Interplay between computational models and cognitive electrophysiology in visual word recognition. Brain Res Rev. 53:98-123.
3. Barber H, Vergara M, Carreiras M. 2004. Syllable-frequency effects in visual word recognition: evidence from ERPs. Neuroreport. 15: 545-548.
4. Berent I, Perfetti CA. 1995. A rose is a REEZ: the two cycles model of phonology assembly in reading English. Psychol Rev. 102: 146-184.
5. Bonatti LL, Pena M, Nespor M, Mehler J. 2005. Linguistic constraints on statistical computations: the role of consonants and vowels in continuous speech processing. Psychol Sci. 16:451-459.
6. Bonatti LL, Pena M, Nespor M, Mehler J. 2007. On consonants, vowels, chickens, and eggs. Psychol Sci. 18:924-925.
7. Caramazza A, Chialant D, Capasso D, Miceli G. 2000. Separable processing of consonants and vowels. Nature. 403:428-430.
8. Carreiras M, Gillon-Dowens M, Vergara M, Perea M. 2009. Are vowels and consonants processed differently? ERP evidence with a delayed letter paradigm. J Cogn Neurosci. 21:275-288.
9. Carreiras M, Perea M, Vergara M, Pollatsek A. 2009. The time course of orthography and phonology: ERP correlates of masked priming effects in Spanish. Psychophysiology. Forthcoming.
10. Carreiras M, Price CJ. 2008. Brain activation for consonants and vowels. Cereb Cortex. 18:1727-1735.
11. Carreiras M, Vergara M, Barber H. 2005. Early ERP effects of syllabic processing during visual word recognition. J Cogn Neurosci. 17:1803-1817.
12. Carreiras M, Vergara M, Perea M. 2007. ERP correlates of transposed-letter similarity effects: are consonants processed differently from vowels? Neurosci Lett. 419:219-224.
13. Carreiras M, Vergara M, Perea M. 2009. ERP correlates of transposed-letter priming effects: the role of vowels vs. consonants. Psycho-physiology. 46:34-42. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2008.00725.x.
14. Cattell JM. 1886. The time taken by cerebral operations. Mind. 11:220-242.
15. Chauncey K, Holcomb PJ, Grainger J. 2008. Effects of stimulus font and size on masked repetition priming: an ERP investigation. Lang Cogn Process. 23:183-200.
16. Coltheart M, Rastle K, Perry C, Ziegler J, Langdon R. 2001. DRC: a dual-route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychol Rev. 108:204-256.
17. Cutler A, Sebastian-Galles N, Soler-Vilageliu O, van Ooijen B. 2000. Constraints of vowels and consonants on lexical selection: cross-linguistic comparisons. Mem Cognit. 28:746-755.
18. Davis CJ. 1999. The self-organising lexical acquisition and recognition (SOLAR) model of visual word recognition. University of New South Wales Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
19. Davis CJ, Perea M. 2005. BuscaPalabras: a program for deriving orthographic and phonological neighborhood statistics and other psycholinguistic indices in Spanish. Behav Res Methods. 37:665-671.
20. Dehaene S, Cohen L, Sigman M, Vinckier F. 2005. The neural code for written words: a proposal. Trends Cogn Sci. 9:335-341.
21. Dunabeitia JA, Molinaro N, Laka I, Estevez A, Carreiras M. 2009. N250 effects for letter transpositions depend on lexicality: casual or causal? NeuroReport. DOI: 10.1097/WNR.0b013e3283249b1c.
22. Dunabeitia JA, Perea M, Carreiras M. 2007. Do transposed-letter similarity effects occur at a morpheme level? Evidence for morpho-orthographic decomposition. Cognition. 105(3):691-703.
23. Forster KI. 1976. Accessing the mental lexicon. In: Wales RJ, Walker EW, editors. New approaches to language mechanisms. Amsterdam: North Holland. p. 257-287.
24. Gomez P, Ratcliff R, Perea M. 2008. The overlap model: a model of letter position coding. Psychol Rev. 115:577-601.
25. Grainger J. 2008. Cracking the orthographic code: an introduction. Lang Cogn Process. 23(1):1-35.
26. Grainger J, Granier JP, Farioli F, Van Assche E, van Heuven W. 2006. Letter position information and printed word perception: the relative-position priming constraint. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 32:865-884.
27. Grainger J, Jacobs AM. 1996. Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: a multiple read-out model. Psychol Rev. 103:518-565.
28. Grainger J, Kiyonaga K, Holcomb PJ. 2006. The time-course of orthographic and phonological code activation. Psychol Sci. 17:1021-1026.
29. Grainger J, van Heuven WJB. 2003. Modeling setter position coding in printed word perception. In: Bonin P, editor. The mental lexicon. New York: Nova Science. p. 1-23.
30. Greenhouse S, Geisser S. 1959. On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrica. 24:94-112.
31. Healy AF, Cunningham TF. 1992. A developmental evaluation of the role of word shape in word recognition. Mem Cognit. 20:141-150.
32. Healy AF, Oliver WL, McNamara TP. 1987. Detecting letters in continuous text: effects of display size. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 13:279-290.
33. Holcomb PJ, Grainger J. 2006. On the time course of visual word recognition: an event-related potential investigation using masked repetition priming. J Cogn Neurosci. 18:1631-1643.
34. Holcomb PJ, Grainger J, O?Rourke T. 2002. An electrophysiological study of the effects of orthographic neighborhood size on printed word perception. J Cogn Neurosci. 14:938-950.
35. Humphreys GW, Evett LJ, Quinlan PT. 1990. Orthographic processing in visual word identification. Cogn Psychol. 22:517-560.
36. Kutas M, Federmeier K. 2000. Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends Cogn Sci. 4: 463-470.
37. Lee H-W, Rayner K, Pollatsek A. 2001. The relative contribution of consonants and vowels to word identification during reading. Journal of Memory & Language. 44:189-205.
38. Lee H-W, Rayner K, Pollatsek A. 2002. The processing of consonants and vowels in reading: evidence from the fast priming paradigm. Psych Bull Rev. 9:766-772.
39. McClelland JL, Rumelhart DE. 1981. An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: part 1. An account of basic findings. Psychol Rev. 88:375-407.
40. Nazzi T. 2005. Use of phonetic specificity during the acquisition of new words: differences between consonants and vowels. Cognition. 98:13-30.
41. Nespor M, Pena M, Mehler J. 2003. On the different roles of vowels and consonants in speech processing and language acquisition. Lingue e Linguaggio. 2:221-247.
42. Neville HJ, Mills DL, Lawson DS. 1992. Fractionating language: different neural subsystems with different sensitive periods. Cereb Cortex. 2:244-258.
43. Oldfield RC. 1971. The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia. 9:97-113.
44. Paap KR, Newsome SL, McDonald JE, Schvaneveldt RW. 1982. An activation-verification model for letter and word recognition: the word superiority effect. Psychol Rev. 89:573-594.
45. Pelli DG, Farell B, Moore DC. 2003. The remarkable inefficiency of word recognition. Nature. 423:752-756.
46. Pena M, Bonatti LL, Nespor M, Mehler J. 2002. Signal-driven computations in speech processing. Science. 298:604-607.
47. Perea M, Carreiras M. 2008. Do orthotactics and phonology constrain the transposed-letter effect? Lang Cogn Process. 23:69-92.
48. Perea M, Carreiras M. 2006a. Do transposed-letter similarity effects occur at a syllable level? Exp Psychol. 53:308-315. (Pubitemid 44825744)
49. Perea M, Carreiras M. 2006b. Do transposed-letter effects occur across lexeme boundaries? Psych Bull Rev. 13:418-422. (Pubitemid 44825062)
50. Perea M, Carreiras M. 2006c. Do transposed-letter similarity effects occur at aprelexical phonological level? QuartJExp Psychol. 59:1600-1613.
51. Perea M, Dunabeitia JA, Carreiras M. 2008. Transposed-letter priming effects for close versus distant transpositions. Exp Psychol. 55:397-406.
52. Perea M, Lupker SJ. 2004. Can CANISO activate CASINO? Transposed-letter similarity effects with nonadjacent letter positions. J Mem Lang. 51:231-246.
53. Perea M, Lupker SJ. 2003. Does jugde activate COURT? Transposed-letter similarity effects in masked associative priming. Mem Cognit. 31:829-841.
54. Peressotti F, Grainger J. 1999. Letter position coding in random consonant arrays. Percept Psychophys. 57:875-890.
55. Perry C, Ziegler JC, Zorzi M. 2007. Nested incremental modeling in the development of computational theories: the CDP+ model of reading aloud. Psychol Rev. 114:273-315.
56. Petit JP, Midgley KJ, Holcomb PJ, Grainger J. 2006. On the time course of letter perception: a masked priming ERP investigation. Psychon Bull Rev. 13:674-681.
57. Sebastian-Galles N, Marti MA, Carreiras M, Cuetos F. 2000. Lexesp: una base de datos informatizada del espanol. Spain: Universitat de Barcelona.
58. Toro JM, Nepor M, Mehler J, Bonatti LL. 2008. Finding words and rules in a speech stream. Psychol Sci. 19:137-144.
59. van Casteren M, Davis MH. 2007. Match: a program to assist in matching the conditions of factorial experiments. Behav Res Methods. 39(4): 973-978.
60. van Ooijen B. 1996. Vowel mutability and lexical selection in English: evidence from a word reconstruction task. Mem Cognit. 24:573-583.
61. Vinckier F, Dehaene S, Jobert A, Dubus JP, Sigman M, Cohen L. 2007. Hierarchical coding of letter strings in the ventral stream: dissecting the inner organization of the visual word-form system. Neuron. 55: 143-156.
62. Whitney C. 2001. How the brain encodes the order of letters in a printed word: the SERIOL model and selective literature review. Psychon Bull Rev. 8:221-243.