Location, location, location: How it affects the neighborhood (effect)

Brain and Language

Volumn 118, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 90-104

  Whitney, Carol ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

Computational modeling; Length effect; Neural representations; Orthographic neighborhood; Orthographic processing; Visual word recognition; Visual field asymmetry

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; DECISION MAKING; EYE DOMINANCE; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; ORTHOGRAPHY; PROCESS MODEL; READING; RESPONSE TIME; STIMULUS RESPONSE; VISUAL CORTEX; VISUAL DISCRIMINATION; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL MEMORY; VISUAL STIMULATION; WORD RECOGNITION; WRITING;

BRAIN; COMPUTER SIMULATION; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; MODELS, NEUROLOGICAL; REACTION TIME; VISUAL FIELDS; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 79959678083     PISSN: 0093934X     EISSN: 10902155     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2011.03.001     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Andrews S. The effect of orthographic similarity on lexical retrieval resolving neighborhood conflicts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 1997, 4(4):439-461.
2. Balota D.A., Yap M.J., Cortese M.J., Hutchison K.A., Kessler B., Loftis B., et al. The english lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods 2007, 39(3):445-459.
3. Barber H.A., Kutas M. Interplay between computational models and cognitive electrophysiology in visual word recognition. Brain Research Reviews 2007, 53(1):98-123. 10.1016/j.brainresrev.2006.07.002.
4. Cohen L., Henry C., Dehaene S., Martinaud O., Lehéricy S., Lemer C., et al. The pathophysiology of letter-by-letter reading. Neuropsychologia 2004, 42(13):1768-1780. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.04.018.
5. Coltheart M., Davelaar E., Jonasson J.T., Besner D. Access to the internal lexicon. Attention and performance Vi: The psychology of reading 1977, 535-555. Academic Press, London.
6. Davis C.J. The spatial coding model of visual word identification. Psychological Review 2010, 117(3):713-758. 10.1037/a0019738.
7. Davis C.J., Perea M., Acha J. Re(de)fining the orthographic neighborhood: The role of addition and deletion neighbors in lexical decision and reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2009, 35(5):1550-1570. 10.1037/a0014253.
8. Dehaene S., Cohen L., Sigman M., Vinckier F. The neural code for written words: A proposal. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2005, 9(7):335-341. 10.1016/j.tics.2005.05.004.
9. Dehaene S., Nakamura K., Jobert A., Kuroki C., Ogawa S., Cohen L. Why do children make mirror errors in reading? Neural correlates of mirror invariance in the visual word form area. NeuroImage 2010, 49(2):1837-1848. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.09.024.
10. Ellis A.W. Length, formats, neighbours, hemispheres, and the processing of words presented laterally or at fixation. Brain and Language 2004, 88(3):355-366. 10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00166-4.
11. Ellis A.W., Brysbaert M. Split fovea theory and the role of the two cerebral hemispheres in reading: A review of the evidence. Neuropsychologia 2010, 48(2):353-365. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.08.021.
12. Ellis A.W., Ferreira R., Cathles-Hagan P., Holt K., Jarvis L., Barca L. Word learning and the cerebral hemispheres: From serial to parallel processing of written words. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Series B, Biological Sciences 2009, 364(1536):3675-3696. 10.1098/rstb.2009.0187.
13. Ellis A.W., Young A.W., Anderson C. Modes of word recognition in the left and right cerebral hemispheres. Brain and Language 1988, 35(2):254-273.
14. Gomez P., Ratcliff R., Perea M. The overlap model: A model of letter position coding. Psychological Review 2008, 115(3):577-600. 10.1037/a0012667.
15. Goodman D.F.M., Brette R. The Brian simulator. Frontiers in Neuroscience 2009, 3(2):192-197. 10.3389/neuro.01.026.2009.
16. Grainger J., Granier J., Farioli F., Van Assche E., van Heuven W.J.B. Letter position information and printed word perception: The relative-position priming constraint. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2006, 32(4):865-884. 10.1037/0096-1523.32.4.865.
17. Grainger J., Jacobs A.M. Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple read-out model. Psychological Review 1996, 103(3):518-565.
18. Grainger J., Whitney C. Does the huamn mnid raed wrods as a wlohe?. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2004, 8(2):58-59. 10.1016/j.tics.2003.11.006.
19. Holcomb P.J., Grainger J., O'Rourke T. An electrophysiological study of the effects of orthographic neighborhood size on printed word perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2002, 14(6):938-950. 10.1162/089892902760191153.
20. Hunter Z.R., Brysbaert M., Knecht S. Foveal word reading requires interhemispheric communication. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2007, 19(8):1373-1387. 10.1162/jocn.2007.19.8.1373.
21. Lavidor M., Ellis A.W. Mixed-case effects in lateralized word recognition. Brain and Cognition 2001, 46(1-2):192-195.
22. Lavidor M., Ellis A.W. Orthographic neighborhood effects in the right but not in the left cerebral hemisphere. Brain and Language 2002, 80(1):63-76. 10.1006/brln.2001.2570.
23. Lavidor M., Ellis A.W. Word length and orthographic neighborhood size effects in the left and right cerebral hemispheres. Brain and Language 2002, 80(1):45-62. 10.1006/brln.2001.2583.
24. Lavidor M., Hayes A., Shillcock R., Ellis A.W. Evaluating a split processing model of visual word recognition: Effects of orthographic neighborhood size. Brain and Language 2004, 88(3):312-320. 10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00164-0.
25. Lavidor M., Walsh V. A magnetic stimulation examination of orthographic neighborhood effects in visual word recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2003, 15(3):354-363. 10.1162/089892903321593081.
26. Mano, Q. R., Patrick, C. J., Andresen, E. N., Capizzi, K., Biagioli, R., & Osmon, D. C. (in press). Re-examining format distortion and orthographic neighbourhood size effects in the left, central and right visual fields. Journal of Research in Reading. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01420.x.
27. Martin C.D., Thierry G., Démonet J., Roberts M., Nazir T. ERP evidence for the split fovea theory. Brain Research 2007, 1185:212-220. 10.1016/j.brainres.2007.09.049.
28. Monaghan P., Shillcock R., McDonald S. Hemispheric asymmetries in the split-fovea model of semantic processing. Brain and Language 2004, 88(3):339-354. 10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00165-2.
29. Motter B.C. Central V4 receptive fields are scaled by the V1 cortical magnification and correspond to a constant-sized sampling of the V1 surface. The Journal of Neuroscience. The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience 2009, 29(18):5749-5757. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4496-08.2009.
30. Müller O., Duñabeitia J.A., Carreiras M. Orthographic and associative neighborhood density effects: What is shared, what is different?. Psychophysiology 2010, 47(3):455-466. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00960.x.
31. Murray S.O., Kersten D., Olshausen B.A., Schrater P., Woods D.L. Shape perception reduces activity in human primary visual cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2002, 99(23):15164-15169. 10.1073/pnas.192579399.
32. Murray S.O., Schrater P., Kersten D. Perceptual grouping and the interactions between visual cortical areas. Neural Networks: The Official Journal of the International Neural Network Society 2004, 17(5-6):695-705. 10.1016/j.neunet.2004.03.010.
33. Murray W.S., Forster K.I. Serial mechanisms in lexical access: The rank hypothesis. Psychological Review 2004, 111(3):721-756. 10.1037/0033-295X.111.3.721.
34. Murray W.S., Forster K.I. The rank hypothesis and lexical decision: A reply to Adelman and Brown (2008). Psychological Review 2008, 115(1):240-252. 10.1037/0033-295X.115.1.240.
35. New B., Ferrand L., Pallier C., Brysbaert M. Reexamining the word length effect in visual word recognition: New evidence from the English Lexicon Project. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2006, 13(1):45-52.
36. Perea M., Acha J., Fraga I. Lexical competition is enhanced in the left hemisphere: Evidence from different types of orthographic neighbors. Brain and Language 2008, 105(3):199-210. 10.1016/j.bandl.2007.08.005.
37. Perea M., Lupker S.J. Does jugde activate COURT? Transposed-letter similarity effects in masked associative priming. Memory & Cognition 2003, 31(6):829-841.
38. Pollatsek A., Bolozky S., Well A.D., Rayner K. Asymmetries in the perceptual span for Israeli readers. Brain and Language 1981, 14(1):174-180. 10.1016/0093-934X(81)90073-0.
39. Schrader S., Gewaltig M., Körner U., Körner E. Cortext: A columnar model of bottom-up and top-down processing in the neocortex. Neural Networks: The Official Journal of the International Neural Network Society 2009, 22(8):1055-1070. 10.1016/j.neunet.2009.07.021.
40. Skarratt P.A., Lavidor M. Magnetic stimulation of the left visual cortex impairs expert word recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2006, 18(10):1749-1758. 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.10.1749.
41. Van der Haegen L., Brysbaert M. The mechanisms underlying the interhemispheric integration of information in foveal word recognition: Evidence for transcortical inhibition. Brain and Language 2010, 118(3):81-89.
42. Van der Haegen L., Brysbaert M., Davis C.J. How does interhemispheric communication in visual word recognition work? Deciding between early and late integration accounts of the split fovea theory. Brain and Language 2009, 108(2):112-121. 10.1016/j.bandl.2008.06.005.
43. Van der Haegen L., Drieghe D., Brysbaert M. The split fovea theory and the Leicester critique: What do the data say?. Neuropsychologia 2010, 48(1):96-106. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.08.014.
44. Whitney C. How the brain encodes the order of letters in a printed word: The SERIOL model and selective literature review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2001, 8(2):221-243.
45. Whitney C. Hemisphere-specific effects in word recognition do not require hemisphere-specific modes of access. Brain and Language 2004, 88(3):279-293. 10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00160-3.
46. Whitney C. Supporting the serial in the SERIOL model. Language and Cognitive Processes 2008, 23(6):824-865.
47. Whitney C., Berndt R.S. A new model of letter string encoding: Simulating right neglect dyslexia. Progress in Brain Research 1999, 121:143-163.
48. Whitney C., Lavidor M. Why word length only matters in the left visual field. Neuropsychologia 2004, 42(12):1680-1688. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.04.007.
49. Whitney C., Lavidor M. Facilitative orthographic neighborhood effects: The SERIOL model account. Cognitive Psychology 2005, 51(3):179-213. 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.07.001.
50. Whitney, C., Marton, Y. (in preparation). Letter strings, objects, and dyslexia: The SERIOL2 model.
51. Yarkoni T., Balota D., Yap M. Moving beyond Coltheart's N: A new measure of orthographic similarity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2008, 15(5):971-979. 10.3758/PBR.15.5.971.