| Literature DB >> 22934087 |
Chia-Ying Lee1, Yo-Ning Liu, Jie-Li Tsai.
Abstract
Sentence comprehension depends on continuous prediction of upcoming words. However, when and how contextual information affects the bottom-up streams of visual word recognition is unknown. This study examined the effects of word frequency and contextual predictability (cloze probability of a target word embedded in the sentence) on N1, P200, and N400 components, which are related to various cognitive operations in early visual processing, perceptual decoding, and semantic processing. The data exhibited a significant interaction between predictability and frequency at the anterior N1 component. The predictability effect, in which the low predictability words elicited a more negative N1 than high predictability words, was only observed when reading a high frequency word. A significant predictability effect occurred during the P200 time window, in which the low predictability words elicited a less positive P200 than high predictability words. There is also a significant predictability effect on the N400 component; low predictability words elicited a greater N400 than high predictability words, although this effect did not interact with frequency. The temporal dynamics of the manner in which contextual information affects the visual word recognition is discussed. These findings support the interactive account, suggesting that contextual information facilitates visual-feature and orthographic processing in the early stage of visual word processing and semantic integration in the later stage.Entities:
Keywords: P200; anterior N1; contextual effect; event-related potentials; lexical access
Year: 2012 PMID: 22934087 PMCID: PMC3422729 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00285
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Means of word frequency and predictability of target words and example sentences (Chinese, word-by-word translation, and whole sentence translation) for each condition.
| Condition | Word frequency | Log frequency | Predictability | Example sentences | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HF | HP | 91.25 | 2.84 | 0.80 | ||
| As/government/senior/officials/ | ||||||
| As senior officials in government, one should avoid conflict of | ||||||
| LP | 91.25 | 2.84 | 0.01 | |||
| Human/if/ignore/environment/ | ||||||
| If human keep ignoring the environmental issues and pursuing of | ||||||
| LF | HP | 1.59 | 0 | 0.75 | ||
| Come over/antique shop/find/this/GE/beautiful/DE/ | ||||||
| She passed by an antique shoe and was fond of the beautiful | ||||||
| LP | 1.59 | 0 | 0.01 | |||
| Ancient time/Western/at/clock/invent/before/ | ||||||
| Before the clock was invented, the ancient Western uses | ||||||
Target words are highlighted with bolds and underlines in the example sentences. HF, high frequency; LF, low frequency; HP, high predictability; LP, low predictability.
Figure 1The grand averaged ERPs to the high- and low frequency target words in high- and low predictability contexts across two sessions from 15 representative electrodes. Major ERPs components for further analysis are labeled.
Mean amplitudes of anterior N1 for each condition and each electrode of interest in each session.
| N1 (120–150 ms) | Session 1 | Session 2 | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High frequency | Low frequency | High frequency | Low frequency | ||||||||||
| Left | Midline | Right | Left | Midline | Right | Left | Midline | Right | Left | Midline | Right | ||
| High predictability | F | −1.07 | −1.90 | −1.50 | −2.62 | −2.96 | −2.37 | −1.22 | −1.68 | −1.35 | −1.54 | −2.03 | −1.80 |
| FC | −1.15 | −1.60 | −1.21 | −2.58 | −2.92 | −2.12 | −1.58 | −1.91 | −1.55 | −1.73 | −2.02 | −1.87 | |
| C | −0.80 | −0.93 | −0.44 | −2.23 | −2.29 | −1.76 | −1.29 | −1.45 | −1.02 | −1.36 | −1.35 | −1.51 | |
| Low predictability | F | −1.99 | −2.50 | −2.35 | −1.80 | −2.70 | −1.92 | −2.33 | −2.77 | −2.15 | −1.46 | −1.96 | −1.38 |
| FC | −1.86 | −2.31 | −2.19 | −1.95 | −2.67 | −1.84 | −2.61 | −2.80 | −2.42 | −1.53 | −1.99 | −1.27 | |
| C | −1.43 | −1.58 | −1.72 | −1.79 | −2.17 | −1.51 | −2.24 | −2.32 | −2.05 | −1.07 | −1.27 | −0.73 | |
Figure 2The grand average ERPs words embedded in high and low predictability contexts under high and low frequency conditions across two sessions are shown at Fz. The yellow area indicates the time window (120–150 ms) of the anterior N1. The topographic maps show the predictability effects (low minus high) for high and low frequency words, respectively.
Mean amplitudes of P200 for each condition and each electrode of interest in each session.
| P200 (200–250 ms) | Session 1 | Session 2 | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High frequency | Low frequency | High frequency | Low frequency | ||||||||||
| Left | Midline | Right | Left | Midline | Right | Left | Midline | Right | Left | Midline | Right | ||
| High predictability | F | 2.32 | 2.36 | 2.23 | 2.32 | 2.83 | 2.63 | 1.49 | 1.57 | 1.51 | 1.70 | 1.37 | 1.38 |
| FC | 2.37 | 2.67 | 2.56 | 2.66 | 3.20 | 3.23 | 1.28 | 1.66 | 1.61 | 1.42 | 1.42 | 1.23 | |
| C | 2.14 | 2.70 | 2.97 | 2.48 | 3.42 | 3.15 | 1.31 | 1.70 | 1.82 | 1.37 | 1.78 | 1.28 | |
| Low predictability | F | 1.92 | 1.94 | 1.86 | 2.51 | 2.20 | 2.64 | 0.29 | 0.10 | 0.83 | 2.58 | 2.73 | 2.84 |
| FC | 1.99 | 1.94 | 1.80 | 2.71 | 2.56 | 2.82 | 0.38 | 0.58 | 0.94 | 2.38 | 2.80 | 2.92 | |
| C | 1.77 | 1.94 | 1.72 | 2.17 | 2.59 | 2.55 | 0.57 | 1.11 | 1.41 | 2.24 | 2.98 | 3.00 | |
Figure 3The grand average ERPs for target words embedded in high and low predictability conditions from the first sessions are shown at nine frontocentral electrodes. The yellow area indicates the time window (200–250 ms) of the P200 component.
Mean amplitudes of N400 for each condition and each electrode of interest in each session.
| N400 (300–500 ms) | Session 1 | Session 2 | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High frequency | Low frequency | High frequency | Low frequency | ||||||||||
| Left | Midline | Right | Left | Midline | Right | Left | Midline | Right | Left | Midline | Right | ||
| High predictability | F | −1.61 | −2.00 | −1.62 | −1.61 | −1.37 | −0.93 | −3.25 | −3.90 | −3.00 | −2.23 | −2.66 | −2.03 |
| FC | −1.31 | −1.71 | −1.46 | −1.07 | −1.18 | −0.61 | −3.19 | −3.93 | −2.88 | −2.18 | −2.47 | −2.02 | |
| C | −0.78 | −1.39 | −0.84 | −0.64 | −0.79 | −0.32 | −2.42 | −3.21 | −1.86 | −1.49 | −1.75 | −1.42 | |
| CP | 0.33 | −0.18 | 0.14 | 0.27 | −0.29 | 0.48 | −1.07 | −2.64 | −0.94 | −0.17 | −1.46 | −0.24 | |
| P | 1.68 | 0.72 | 1.37 | 2.01 | 0.85 | 1.78 | 0.54 | −0.60 | 0.68 | 1.45 | 0.65 | 1.77 | |
| Low predictability | F | −1.65 | −2.30 | −1.98 | −1.51 | −2.76 | −1.72 | −2.35 | −3.57 | −2.35 | −1.48 | −2.13 | −1.44 |
| FC | −1.83 | −2.57 | −2.07 | −1.55 | −2.92 | −1.85 | −2.65 | −3.73 | −2.72 | −1.84 | −2.49 | −1.93 | |
| C | −1.66 | −2.51 | −2.14 | −1.81 | −2.96 | −2.16 | −2.56 | −3.40 | −2.48 | −1.46 | −2.36 | −1.56 | |
| CP | −0.78 | −1.72 | −0.75 | −0.97 | −2.17 | −1.13 | −1.21 | −3.13 | −1.64 | −0.55 | −2.12 | −0.89 | |
| P | 0.85 | −0.68 | 0.26 | 1.09 | −0.89 | 0.35 | 0.29 | −1.13 | 0.23 | 0.58 | −0.39 | 0.72 | |
Figure 4The grand average ERPs to words embedded in high and low predictability contexts under high and low frequency conditions from the first sessions are shown at Cz. The yellow area indicates the time window (300–500 ms) of the N400. The topographic maps show the predictability effects (low minus high) for high and low frequency words, respectively.