Parafoveal N400 effect during sentence reading

Neuroscience Letters

Volumn 479, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 152-156

  Barber, Horacio A ^a   Doñamayor, Nuria ^b   Kutas, Marta ^c   Münte, Thomas ^b  

^a UNIVERSIDAD DE LA LAGUNA   (Spain)

^b OTTO VON GUERICKE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

ERPs; N400; Parafoveal on foveal effect; Sentence reading

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AMPLITUDE MODULATION; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAM; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; EYE TRACKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INFORMATION; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; READING; SEMANTICS; STIMULUS RESPONSE; VISUAL FIELD; VOLUNTEER; BRAIN; BRAIN MAPPING; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; ELECTROOCULOGRAPHY; EVOKED VISUAL RESPONSE; EYE FIXATION; PHYSIOLOGY; RETINA FOVEA; VISION;

BRAIN; BRAIN MAPPING; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; ELECTROOCULOGRAPHY; EVOKED POTENTIALS, VISUAL; FIXATION, OCULAR; FOVEA CENTRALIS; HUMANS; READING; SEMANTICS; VISUAL FIELDS; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 77953913721     PISSN: 03043940     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2010.05.053     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Baccino T., Manunta Y. Eye-fixation-related potentials: insight into parafoveal processing. Journal of Psychophysiology 2005, 19(3):204-215.
2. H.A. Barber, S. Ben-Zvi, S. Bentin, M. Kutas. Parafoveal perception during sentence reading?: An ERP paradigm using rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) with flankers. Psychophysiology, in press.
3. Deacon D., Shelley-Tremblay J. How automatically is meaning accessed: a review of the effects of attention on semantic processing. Frontiers in Bioscience 2000, 1(5):82-94.
4. Drieghe D., Rayner K., Pollatsek A. Mislocated fixations can account for parafoveal-on-foveal effects in eye movements during reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2008, 61(8):1239-1249.
5. Ducrot S., Grainger J. Deployment of spatial attention to words in central and peripheral vision. Perception and Psychophysics 2007, 69(4):578-590.
6. Ellis A. Length, formats, neighbours, hemispheres, and the processing of words presented laterally or at fixation. Brain and Language 2004, 88:355-366.
7. Federmeier K.D., Mai H., Kutas M. Both sides get the point: hemispheric sensitivities to sentential constraint. Memory and Cognition 2005, 33(5):871-886.
8. Gratton G., Coles M.G.H., Donchin E. A new method for the off-line removal of ocular artifact. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 1983, 55:468-484.
9. Gunter T.C., Jackson J.L., Kutas M., Mulder G., Buijink B.M. Focusing on the N400: an exploration of selective attention during reading. Psychophysiology 1994, 31(4):347-358.
10. Kennedy A., Pynte J. Parafoveal-on-foveal effects in normal reading. Vision Research 2005, 45:153-168.
11. Kutas M., Hillyard S.A. Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science 1980, 207:203-205.
12. Kutas M., Van Petten C., Kluender R. Psycholinguistics electrified II (1994-2005). Handbook of Psycholinguistics 2006, 659-724. Elsevier Press, New York. 2nd ed. M.A. Gernsbacher, M. Traxler (Eds.).
13. Kretzschmar F., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I., Schlesewsky M. Parafoveal versus foveal N400s dissociate spreading activation from contextual fit. Neuroreport 2009, 20(18):1613-1618.
14. Pernet C., Uusvuori J., Salmelin R. Parafoveal-on-foveal and foveal word priming are different processes: behavioral and neurophysiological evidence. NeuroImage 2007, 38:321-330.
15. Rayner K. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin 1998, 124:372-422.
16. Simola J., Holmqvist K., Lindgren M. Right visual field advantage in parafoveal processing: evidence from eye-fixation-related potentials. Brain and Language 2009, 111(2):101-113.