Evidence for early morphological decomposition: Combining masked priming with magnetoencephalography

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Volumn 23, Issue 11, 2011, Pages 3366-3379

  Lehtonen, Minna ^a,b,c,d   Monahan, Philip J ^b,e   Poeppel, David ^b,f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^c AALTO UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

^d ÅBO AKADEMI UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

^e BASQUE CENTER ON COGNITION   (Spain)

^f NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BRAIN FUNCTION; BRAIN REGION; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LATENT PERIOD; MAGNETOENCEPHALOGRAPHY; MALE; MASKED MORPHOLOGICAL PRIMING; NORMAL HUMAN; OCCIPITAL CORTEX; PRIORITY JOURNAL; READING; SEMANTICS; TASK PERFORMANCE; TECHNIQUE; TEMPORAL CORTEX; THEORETICAL MODEL; VISUAL STIMULATION; WORD MORPHOLOGICAL DECOMPOSITION; WORD RECOGNITION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTENTION; BRAIN MAPPING; COMPREHENSION; CONCEPT FORMATION; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HUMANS; MAGNETOENCEPHALOGRAPHY; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PHOTIC STIMULATION; REACTION TIME; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 80053553402     PISSN: 0898929X     EISSN: 15308898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1162/jocn_a_00035     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Baayen, R. H., Dijkstra, T., & Schreuder, R. (1997). Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual-route model. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 94-117.
2. Beretta, A., Fiorentino, R., & Poeppel, D. (2005). The effects of homonymy and polysemy on lexical access: An MEG study. Cognitive Brain Research, 24, 57-65.
3. Butterworth, B. (1983). Lexical representation. In B. Butterworth (Ed.), Language production: Development, writing, and other language processes (Vol. 2, pp. 257-294). London: Academic Press.
4. Bybee, J. L., & McClelland, J. L. (2005). Alternative to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition. The Linguistic Review, 22, 381-410.
5. Bybee, J. L., & Slobin, D. I. (1982). Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense. Language, 59, 251-270.
6. Caramazza, A. (1988). Some aspects of language processing revealed through the analysis of acquired aphasia: The lexical system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 11, 395-421.
7. Caramazza, A., Laudanna, A., & Romani, C. (1988). Lexical access and inflectional morphology. Cognition, 28, 297-332.
8. Cornelissen, P., Tarkiainen, A., Helenius, P., & Salmelin, R. (2003). Cortical effects of shifting letter position in letter strings of varying length. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 731-746.
9. de Cheveigné, A., & Simon, J. Z. (2007). Denoising based on time-shift PCA. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 165, 297-305.
10. de Cheveigné, A., & Simon, J. Z. (2008a). Sensor noise suppression. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 168, 195-202.
11. de Cheveigné, A., & Simon, J. Z. (2008b). Denoising based on spatial filtering. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 171, 331-339.
12. Devlin, J. T., Jamison, H. L., Matthews, P. M., & Gonnerman, L. M. (2004). Morphology and the internal structure of words. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., 101, 14984-14988.
13. Duñabeitia, J. A., Perea, M., & Carreiras, M. (2007). Do transposed-letter similarity effects occur at a morpheme level? Evidence for morpho-orthographic decomposition. Cognition, 105, 691-703.
14. Feldman, L. B., Soltano, E. G., Pastizzo, M. J., & Francis, S. E. (2004). What do graded effects of semantic transparency reveal about morphological processing? Brain and Language, 90, 17-30.
15. Fiorentino, R., & Poeppel, D. (2007). Compound words and structure in the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 953-1000.
16. Forster, K. I. (1998). Pros and cons of masked priming. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 203-233.
17. 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.
18. Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 35, 116-124.
19. Giraudo, H., & Grainger, J. (2000). Effects of prime word frequency and cumulative root frequency in masked morphological priming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 421-444.
20. Giraudo, H., & Grainger, J. (2001). Priming complex words: Evidence for supralexical representation of morphology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 127-131.
21. Gold, B. T., & Rastle, K. (2007). Neural correlates ofmorphological decomposition during visual word recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1983-1993.
22. Grainger, J., & Holcomb, P. J. (2009). An ERP investigation of orthographic priming with relative-position and absoluteposition primes. Brain Research, 1270, 45-53.
23. Grainger, J., Kiyonaga, K., & Holcomb, P. J. (2006). The time course of orthographic and phonological code activation. Psychological Science, 17, 1021-1026.
24. Hari, R., Levänen, S., & Raij, T. (2000). Timing of human cortical functions during cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 455-462.
25. Harris, J., Pylkkänen, L., McElree, B., & Frisson, S. (2008). The cost of question concealment: Eye-tracking and MEG evidence. Brain and Language, 107, 44-61.
26. Hay, J. (2001). Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics, 39, 1041-1070.
27. Hay, J. B., & Baayen, R. H. (2005). Shifting paradigms: Gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 342-348.
28. Holcomb, P. J., & Grainger, J. (2006). On the time course of visual word recognition: An event-related potential investigation using masked repetition priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1631-1643.
29. Hyönä, J., Vainio, S., & Laine, M. (2002). A morphological effect obtains for isolated words but not for words in a sentence context. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 14, 417-433.
30. Järvikivi, J., Pyykkönen, P., & Niemi, J. (2009). Exploiting degrees of inflectional ambiguity: Stem form and the time course of morphological processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 221-237.
31. Kazanina, N., Dukova-Zheleva, G., Geber, D., Kharlamov, V., & Tonciulescu, K. (2008). Decomposition into multiple morphemes during lexical access: A masked priming study of Russian nouns. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 800-823.
32. Laine, M., Vainio, S., & Hyönä, J. (1999). Lexical access routes to nouns in a morphologically rich language. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 109-135.
33. Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211-240.
34. Lavric, A., Clapp, A., & Rastle, K. (2007). ERP evidence of morphological analysis from orthography: A masked priming study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 866-877.
35. Lehtonen, M., Cunillera, T., Rodríguez-Fornells, A., Hultén, A., Tuomainen, J., & Laine, M. (2007). Recognition of morphologically complex words in Finnish: Evidence from event-related potentials. Brain Research, 1148, 123-137.
36. Lehtonen, M., Vorobyev, V. A., Hugdahl, K., Tuokkola, T., & Laine, M. (2006). Neural correlates of morphological decomposition in a morphologically rich language: An fMRI study. Brain and Language, 98, 182-193.
37. Leinonen, A., Grönholm-Nyman, P., Järvenpää, M., Söderholm, C., Lappi, O., Laine, M., et al. (2009). Neurocognitive processing of auditorily and visually presented inflected words and pseudowords: Evidence from a morphologically rich language. Brain Research, 1275, 54-66.
38. Lewis, G., Solomyak, O., & Marantz, A. (2011). The neural basis of obligatory decomposition of suffixed words. Brain and Language, 118, 118-127.
39. Longtin, C.-M., Segui, J., & Hallé, P. A. (2003). Morphological priming without morphological relationship. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 313-334.
40. Lounasmaa, O. V., Hämäläinen, M., Hari, R., & Salmelin, R. (1996). Information processing in the human brain: Magnetoencephalographic approach. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., 93, 8809-8815.
41. Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Bozic, M., & Randall, B. (2008). Early decomposition in visual word form recognition: Dissociating morphology, form, and meaning. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 394-421.
42. Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Tyler, L. K. (2007). Morphology, language and the brain: The decompositional substrate for language comprehension. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B, 362, 823-386.
43. Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Tyler, L. K., Waksler, R., & Older, L. (1994). Morphology and meaning in the English mental lexicon. Psychological Review, 101, 3-33.
44. Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. (2001). WebCelex. Retrieved from celex.mpi.nl/. Accessed 26 June 2009.
45. Meunier, F., & Longtin, C.-M. (2007). Morphological decomposition and semantic integration in word processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 457-471.
46. Monahan, P. J., Fiorentino, R., & Poeppel, D. (2008). Masked repetition priming using magnetoencephalography. Brain and Language, 106, 65-71.
47. Morris, J., Frank, T., Grainger, J., & Holcomb, P. J. (2007). Semantic transparency and masked morphological priming: An ERP investigation. Psychophysiology, 44, 506-521.
48. Morris, J., Grainger, J., & Holcomb, P. J. (2008). An electrophysiological investigation of early effects of masked morphological priming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 1021-1056.
49. Niemi, J., Laine, M., & Tuominen, J. (1994). Cognitive morphology in Finnish: Foundations of a new model. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 423-446.
50. Pinker, S., & Prince, A. (1988). On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition, 28, 73-193.
51. Plaut, D. C., & Gonnerman, L. M. (2000). Are non-semantic morphological effects incompatible with a distributed connectionist approach to lexical processing? Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 445-485.
52. Pylkkänen, L., Llinas, R., & Murphy, G. L. (2006). The representation of polysemy: MEG evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 97-109.
53. Pylkkänen, L., & Marantz, A. (2003). Tracking the time course of word recognition with MEG. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 187-189.
54. Pylkkänen, L., & Okano, K. (2010). The nature of abstract orthographic codes: Evidence from masked priming and magnetoencephalography. PLoS ONE, 5, e10793.
55. Pylkkänen, L., Stringfellow, A., & Marantz, A. (2002). Neuromagnetic evidence for the timing of lexical activation: An MEG component sensitive to phonotactic probability but not to neighborhood density. Brain and Language, 81, 666-678.
56. Rastle, K., & Davis, M. H. (2008). Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of orthography. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 942-971.
57. Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Tyler, L. K. (2000). Morphological and semantic effects in visual word recognition: A time course study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 507-537.
58. Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., & New, B. (2004). The broth in my brother's brothel: Morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 1090-1098.
59. Rumelhart, D., & McClelland, J. L. (1986). On learning the past tenses of English verbs. In D. Rumelhart & J. McClelland (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (pp. 216-271). Cambridge: MIT Press.
60. Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (1995). Modeling morphological processing. In L. B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 131-156). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
61. Seidenberg, M. S., & Gonnerman, L. M. (2000). Explaining derivational morphology as the convergence of codes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 353-361.
62. Solomyak, O., & Marantz, A. (2009). Lexical access in early stages of visual word processing: A single-trial correlational MEG study of heteronym recognition. Brain and Language, 108, 191-196.
63. Solomyak, O., & Marantz, A. (2010). Evidence for early morphological decomposition in visual word recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 2042-2057.
64. Stockall, L., & Marantz, A. (2006). A single route, full decomposition model of morphological complexity: MEG evidence. The Mental Lexicon, 1, 85-123.
65. Stockall, L., Stringfellow, A., & Marantz, A. (2004). The precise time course of lexical activation: MEG measurements of the effects of frequency, probability and density in lexical decision. Brain and Language, 90, 88-94.
66. Taft, M. (1979). Recognition of affixed words and the word frequency effect. Memory & Cognition, 7, 263-272.
67. Taft, M. (2004). Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A, 745-765.
68. Taft, M., & Forster, K. I. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 638-647.
69. Tarkiainen, A., Cornelissen, P. L., & Salmelin, R. (2002). Dynamics of visual feature analysis and object-level processing in face versus letter-string perception. Brain, 125, 1125-1136.
70. Tarkiainen, A., Helenius, P., Hansen, P. C., Cornelissen, P. L., & Salmelin, R. (1999). Dynamics of letter string perception in the human occipitotemporal cortex. Brain, 122, 2119-2131.
71. Vartiainen, J., Aggujaro, S., Lehtonen, M., Hultén, A., Laine, M., & Salmelin, R. (2009). Neural dynamics of reading morphologically complex words. Neuroimage, 47, 2064-2072.
72. Zweig, E., & Pylkkänen, L. (2009). A visual M170 effect of morphological complexity. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24, 412-439.