Electrophysiological evidence of different loci for case-mixing and word frequency effects in visual word recognition

Abstract

Besner & McCann, 1987). To determine the locus of the word frequency and case-mixing effects, we manipulated word frequency (high vs. low) and case type (consistent lower case vs. mixing case) in a lexical-decision paradigm. We measured two event-related-potential components: the N170 (an early peak occurring 140-240 ms after stimulus onset, related to structural encoding) and the P3 (a late peak occurring 400-600 ms after stimulus onset, related to stimulus categorization). The critical finding was that the N170 amplitude was sensitive to case mixing, but the P3 amplitude was sensitive to word frequency and lexicality. These results suggest that case mixing affects an earlier processing stage than does word frequency, at least with respect to lexical-decision processes.Keywords Visual word recognition . Event-related potentials . Case mixing . Word frequencyThe question of how we process words during reading has generated an extensive literature, probably because reading is such a frequent activity. One fruitful approach to studying reading and word recognition is to examine how characteristics of the word affect recognition using a lexical-decision task (LDT; i.e., determining whether a letter string forms a word or a nonword). Two of the commonly used manipulations of words are case mixing (e.g., mixed case [TeNnIs] vs. consistent lower case [tennis]) and word frequency (the frequency with which a word occurs in the language). Studies with a case-mixing manipulation have consistently revealed shorter response times (RTs) for consistent lowercase than for mixed-case words (the case-mixing effect). Studies with a word frequency manipulation have revealed shorter RTs for high-than for low-frequency words (the word frequency effect).

When some triggers a scalar inference out of the blue. An electrophysiological study of a Stroop-like conflict elicited by single words

“…As expected, longer RTs for MiXEd than CAPS stimuli showed that the MiXEd condition proved more demanding than the CAPS condition (see e.g., Mayall, Humphreys and Olson, 1997;Mayall, Humphreys, Mechelli et al, 2001;Juhasz et al, 2006;Arditi and Cho, 2007;Lien, Allen and Crawford, 2012). Significant di erences in accuracy expected from the Stroop conflict only appeared for all.…”

“…Participants were asked to indicate whether or not each stimulus was presented with all its letters in upper case. Over and above a classical e ect of physical form (mixed vs. upper case) expected from the literature (see e.g., Mayall, Humphreys and Olson, 1997;Mayall, Humphreys, Mechelli et al, 2001;Juhasz et al, 2006;Arditi and Cho, 2007;Lien, Allen and Crawford, 2012), in the case of stimuli such as 'alL', we expected greater conflict as compared to the case of 'ALL', manifesting as a modulation of the N450, because of the incongruence between the word's guise and its meaning. As regards some, two scenarios were possible.…”

Word Frequency Effect in Lexical Decision Task: Evidence from Khalkha Mongolian

“…Traditionally, the word frequency effect is based on the findings that highfrequency words are responded faster than low-frequency ones in almost any lexical processing task, including lexical decision, reading aloud, semantic categorization, and picture naming (Duyck et al, 2008). This effect is one of the most robust and wellknown in word recognition research in different languages (Monsell et al, 1989;Allen et al, 1995;Lien et al, 2012;Kwon et al, 2006). The lexical decision task (LDT) is widely used to reveal this effect.…”

A further examination of the lexical-processing stages hypothesized by the E-Z Reader model

“…Importantly, as was argued by Reingold (2003), the E-Z Reader model predicts that experimental manipulations that disrupt L 1 but not L 2 should influence the processing difficulty of word n without affecting the processing of word n + 1 , whereas manipulations that impact L 2 should impact word n + 1 fixation times. To test this prediction, Reingold and Rayner contrasted a stimulus quality manipulation (i.e., reducing visual contrast; henceforth also referred to as the faint condition) that was expected to produce a rapid influence on lexical processing (e.g., Besner & Roberts, 2003;Borowsky & Besner, 1993;Braet & Humphreys, 2006a, 2006bWhite & Staub, 2012) with a case alternation manipulation (e.g., tAbLe) that was expected to produce a later influence on lexical processing (e.g., Braet & Humphreys, 2006a, 2006bHerdman, Chernecki, & Norris, 1999;Mayall, Humphreys, & Olson, 1997; but see Lien, Allen, & Crawford, 2012). Consistent with the E-Z Reader model, the stimulus quality manipulation produced longer fixation times on word n , but largely did not affect the processing of word n + 1 .…”