The N400 as a snapshot of interactive processing: Evidence from regression analyses of orthographic neighbor and lexical associate effects

Psychophysiology

Volumn 48, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 176-186

  Laszlo, Sarah ^a   Federmeier, Kara D ^b  

^a CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

Multiple regression; N400; Orthographic neighborhood; Semantic access

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED RESPONSE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; READING; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED POTENTIALS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; READING; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79951794804     PISSN: 00485772     EISSN: 14698986     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2010.01058.x     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Besner, D., & Chapnik Smith, M. (1992). Models of visual word recognition: When obscuring the stimulus yields a clearer view. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 468-482.
2. Borowsky, R., & Besner, D. (1993). Visual word recognition: A multistage activation model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 813-840.
3. Brown, C., & Hagoort, P. (1993). The processing nature of the N400: Evidence from masked priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 34-44.
4. Brunelli, R., & Poggio, T. (1993). Face recognition: Features versus templates. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 15, 1042-1052.
5. Dale, A. M. (1994). Source localization and spatial discriminant analysis of event-related potentials: Linear approaches. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. La Jolla, CA: University of California, San Diego.
6. Dambacher, M., Kliegl, R., Hofman, M., & Jacobs, A. M. (2006). Frequency and predictability effects on event-related potentials during reading. Brain Research, 1084, 89-103.
7. Deacon, D., Dynowska, A., Ritter, W., & Grose-Fifer, J. (2004). Repetition and semantic priming of nonwords: Implications for theories of N400 and word recognition. Psychophysiology, 41, 60-74.
8. Debruille, J. B. (1998). Knowledge inhibition and N400: A study with words that look like common words. Brain and Language, 62, 202-220.
9. Federmeier, K. D., & Laszlo, S. (2009). Time for meaning: Electrophysiology provides insights into the dynamics of representation and processing in semantic memory. In B. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of Learning and Memory, 51, 1-44.
10. Forster, K. I. (1999). The microgenesis of priming effects in lexical access. Brain and Language, 68, 5-15.
11. Forster, K. I., & Davis, C. (1984). Repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 680-698.
12. Forster, K. I., & Veres, C. (1998). The prime lexicality effect: Form-priming as a function of prime awareness, lexical status, and discrimination difficulty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 498-514.
13. Grainger, J. (1990). Word frequency and neighborhood frequency effects in lexical decision and naming. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 228-244.
14. Grainger, J., & Holcomb, P. J. (2009). Watching the word go by: On the time-course of component processes in visual word recognition. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3, 128-156.
15. Grainger, J., Kinyonaga, K., & Holcomb, P. J. (2006). The time-course of orthographic and phonological code activation. Psychological Science, 17, 1021-1026.
16. Hagoort, P., Baggio, G., & Willems, R. M. (2009). Semantic unification. In M. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The Cognitive Neurosciences (4th edition, pp. 819-836). Boston: MIT Press.
17. Harm, M. W., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2004). Computing the meanings of words in reading: Cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes. Psychological Review, 111, 662-720.
18. Hauk, O., Davis, M. H., Ford, M., Pulvermuller, F., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2006). The time course of visual word recognition as revealed by linear regression analysis of ERP data. NeuroImage, 30, 1313-1400.
19. Hauk, O., Pulvermuller, F., Ford, M., Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Davis, M. H. (2009). Can I have a quick word? Early electrophysiological manifestations of psycholinguistic processes revealed by event-related regression analysis of the EEG. Biological Psychology, 80, 64-74.
20. Holcomb, P. J., Grainger, J., & O'Rourke, T. (2002). An electrophysiological study of the effects of orthographic neighborhood size on printed word perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 938-950.
21. Kello, C. T., Plaut, D. C., & MacWhinney, B. (2000). The task-dependence of staged versus cascaded processing: An empirical and computational study of Stroop interference on speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 340-360.
22. King, J.W, & Kutas, M. (1998). Neural plasticity in the dynamics of human visual word recognition. Neuroscience Letters, 244, 61-64.
23. Kiyonaga, K., Midgley, K. J., Holcomb, P. J., & Grainger, J. (2007). Masked cross-modal repetition priming: An ERP investigation. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 337-376.
24. Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Science, 4, 463-470.
25. Kutas, M., Van Petten, C. K., & Kluender, R. (2007). Psycholinguistics electrified II (1994-2005). In M. A. Gernsbacher & M. Traxler (Eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (2nd edition, pp. 88-143). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
26. Laszlo, S., & Federmeier, K. D. (2007). Better the DVL you know: Acronyms reveal the contribution of familiarity to single word reading. Psychological Science, 18, 122-126.
27. Laszlo, S., & Federmeier, K. D. (2008). Minding the PS, queues, and PXQs: Uniformity of semantic processing across multiple stimulus types. Psychophysiology, 45, 458-466.
28. Laszlo, S., & Federmeier, K. D. (2009). A beautiful day in the neighborhood: An event-related potential study of lexical relationships in sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 326-338.
29. Lau, E. F., Phillips, C., & Poeppel, D. (2008). A cortical network for semantics: (De)constructing the N400. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, 920-933.
30. Marcus, M., Santorini, B., & Marcinkiewicz, M. (1993). Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19, 313-330.
31. Marincovic, K., Dhond, R., Dale, A. M., Glessner, M., Carr, V., & Halgren, E. (2003). Spatiotemporal dynamics of modality-specific and supramodal word processing. Neuron, 38, 487-497.
32. Massol, S., Grainger, J., Dufau, S., & Holcomb, P. (2010). Masked priming from orthographic neighbors: An ERP investivation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 162-174.
33. McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 1. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375-407.
34. Medler, D. A., & Binder, J. R. (2005). MCWord: An on-line orthographic database of the English language. Retrieved from:
35. Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (1998). The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Retrieved from:
36. Plourde, C. E., & Besner, D. (1997). On the locus of the word frequency effect in visual word recognition. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51, 181-194.
37. Poggio, T., & Edelman, S. (1990). A network that learns to recognize three-dimensional objects. Nature, 343, 263-266.
38. Rey, A., Dufau, S., Massol, S., & Grainger, J. (2009). Testing computational models of letter perception with item-level event-related potentials. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 26, 7-22.
39. Rugg, M. D., & Nagy, M. E. (1987). Lexical contribution to nonword-repetition effects: Evidence from event-related potentials. Memory & Cognition, 15, 473-481.
40. Rumelhart, D. D., & McClelland, J. L. (1982). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 2. The contextual enhancement effect and some tests and extensions of the model. Psychological Review, 89, 60-94.
41. Sereno, S. C., Rayner, K., & Posner, M. I. (1998). Establishing a time-line of word recognition: Evidence from eye movements and event-related potentials. NeuroReport, 9, 2195-2200.
42. Shtyrov, Y., Kujala, T., & Pulvermuller, F. (2010). Interactions between language and attention systems: Early automatic lexical processing? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 1465-1478.
43. Stolz, J. A., & Neely, J. H. (1995). When target degradation does and does not enhance semantic context effects in word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 596-611.
44. Tse, C. Y., Lee, C. L., Sullivan, J., Garnsey, S. M., Dell, G. S., Fabiani, M., & Gratton, G. (2007). Imaging cortical dynamics of language processing with the event-related optical signal. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 17157-17161.
45. Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2009). Does the N400 directly reflect compositional sense-making? Psychophysiology, 46 (Supplement 2), s2.
46. Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (1990). Interactions between sentence context and word frequency in event-related brain potentials. Memory & Cognition, 18, 380-393.