=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1347/paper23
|storemode=property
|title=ERP correlates of letter-case in visual word recognition
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1347/paper23.pdf
|volume=Vol-1347
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/networds/FernandezPV15
}}
==ERP correlates of letter-case in visual word recognition==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1347/paper23.pdf
ERP correlates of letter-case in visual word recognition
Barbara Leone-Fernandez Manuel Perea Marta Vergara-Martínez
Departamento de Metodo- Departamento de Metodo- Departamento de Psicología
logía, Facultad de Psicología logía, Facultad de Psicología Evolutiva, Facultad de Psico-
Av. Blasco Ibáñez, 21, Uni- Av. Blasco Ibáñez, 21, Uni- logía
versitat de València, 46010, versitat de València, 46010, Av. Blasco Ibáñez, 21, Uni-
Spain Spain versitat de València, 46010,
barbara.leone@uv.es manuel.perea@uv.es Spain
marta.vergara@uv.es
of different frequency (high and low). They
1 Introduction found that the N170 amplitude, related to struc-
tural encoding, was sensitive to case mixing, but
Visual word recognition is a key element of lan-
the P3, related to stimulus categorization, was
guage comprehension. The vast majority of cur-
sensitive to lexicality and word frequency. They
rent models assume that the recognition of a
proposed that case mixing affects early pro-
printed word is based on the activation of ab-
cessing stages of visual word recognition.
stract letter identity representations. The hierar-
chical neural accounts of letter/word recognition
The Lien et al. experiment is important, but it
of Dehaene, Cohen, Sigman, and Vinckier
does not respond to the question of whether let-
(2005) and Grainger, Rey, and Dufau (2008)
ter-case plays a role during visual-word recogni-
posit that, early in the process of lexical access,
tion with visually familiar words –note that
there are neuronal assemblies that respond to the
mIxEd-cAsE stimuli are visually unfamiliar and
word’s case-specific letters (e.g., they respond to
difficult to process. In contrast, lowercase and
‘e’ but not to ‘E’). Later in processing, there are
uppercase words are the usual format when read-
neuronal assemblies that respond to the abstract
ing words. Indeed, experiments on visual-word
representation of the letter identity (e.g., they
recognition employ either lowercase or upper-
respond to the same degree to ‘e’ and to ‘E’).
case words with no explicit justification.
Importantly, there is one account that does as-
Behavioral evidence using masked priming (i.e.,
sume that letter-case information may form an
a paradigm that taps onto early word processing;
integral part of a word’s lexical representation.
Forster & Davis, 1984; see Grainger, 2008, for
Specifically, Peressotti, Cubelli, and Job (2003)
review) has revealed that there is a rapid access
claimed that ‘while size, font and style (cursive
to case-invariant letter representations. Specifi-
or print) affect the visual shape of letters, the up-
cally, the advantage of the identity condition
percase–lowercase distinction is abstract in na-
over the unrelated condition is independent of
ture as it is an intrinsic property of letters’ (p.
the letter-case (similar advantage for kiss-KISS
108). In the framework of Peressotti et al.’s ‘or-
and EDGE-edge; see Bowers, Vigliocco, &
thographic cue’ account, a given lexical unit
Haan, 1998). Furthermore, response times to
would not be retrieved only on the basis of the
matched-case identical prime-target pairs
letter identity and letter position, but also on the
(EDGE-EDGE) are virtually similar as the re-
basis of letter-case information. Given that most
sponse times to mismatched-case identical
printed words are presented in lowercase, this
prime-target pairs (edge-EDGE; see Jacobs,
should provide an advantage for the processing
Grainger, & Ferrand, 1995; Perea, Jiménez, &
of lowercase vs. uppercase words (see Mayall &
Gómez, 2014).
Humphreys, 1996; Perea & Rosa, 2002, for be-
havioral evidence of a lowercase advantage in
To our knowledge, only a previous experiment
visual-word recognition).
investigated the temporal processing of letter-
case using event-related potentials in an un-
The main aim of this study is to examine the time
masked paradigm (Lien, Allen, & Crawford,
course of letter-case on lexical access. The ERPs
2012). Lien et al. compared the processing of
may help to disentangle whether letter case is an
lowercase-printed vs mIxEd-cAse-printed words
attribute that is only relevant in early perceptual
Copyright © by the paper’s authors. Copying permitted for private and academic purposes.
In Vito Pirrelli, Claudia Marzi, Marcello Ferro (eds.): Word Structure and Word Usage. Proceedings of the NetWordS Final
Conference, Pisa, March 30-April 1, 2015, published at http://ceur-ws.org
106
processing or whether it is also relevant in the
retrieval of lexical representations. To attain this In the N/P150, larger negative values were ob-
goal, we examined whether the effects of letter- served for lowercase than for uppercase words,
case (lowercase vs. UPPERCASE) are modulat- with a central scalp distribution, whereas the ef-
ed by word-frequency (a factor that indicates fect of word-frequency was not significant. In the
lexical/semantic activation; see Vergara- P200, and only for low-frequency words, larger
Martínez, Perea, Gómez, & Swaab, 2013) track- positive values were observed for the lowercase
ing the ERP waves in well-studied time windows than for uppercase words in frontal/central scalp
(N/P150: 100-170 ms; P200: 170-250 ms; N400: areas. With respect to the N400, the ERP waves
255-450 ms) in a lexical decision task. revealed a dissociation of the letter-case effect
for low- and high-frequency words. High-
2 Method frequency words showed an effect of letter-case
in an early stage of the N400, whereas low-
Twenty-two healthy, right-handed, native Span-
frequency words showed an effect of letter-case
ish-speaking Valencia University students, naïve
(in the opposite direction; see Figure 1) in a later
to the manipulation of the stimuli, participated in
stage of the N400.
the study in exchange for a small gift.
We selected a set of 160 words from the Web-
accessible EsPal database (Duchon, Perea, Se-
bastián-Gallés, Martí, & Carreiras, 2013). Half of
the words were of high frequency and half were
of low frequency. The two groups of words were
matched in relevant psycholinguistic factors
(length, orthographic neighborhood, concrete-
ness, imageability…). Half of the words were
presented in uppercase and half in lowercase
(MOTHER; mother). In addition, a list of 160
pseudowords (half in lowercase, half in upper-
case) was included for the purposes of the lexical
decision task.
Participants were instructed to decide as accu-
rately and rapidly as possible whether or not the As expected, there was an early pre-lexical effect
stimulus was a Spanish word. They pressed one of letter-case that did not interact with word-
of two response buttons (YES/NO). The electro- frequency. Importantly, we found an interaction
encephalogram (EEG) was recorded from 29 between letter-case and word-frequency not only
electrodes, averaged separately for each of the in the N400 time window –which is commonly
experimental conditions, each of the subjects and associated to lexical-semantic processing, but
each of the electrode sites. For each time win- also the P200 time window, thus supporting the
dow, we conducted ANOVAs with word- hypothesis that letter-case may affect the map-
frequency (high, low), case (lowercase, UPPER- ping of visual-orthographic information onto
CASE), and AP (anterior, central-anterior, cen- word representations. Taken together, the present
tral, central-posterior and posterior) as factors in ERP data provide empirical support to the hy-
the design. pothesis that letter-case information may be
stored in the abstract word representations (Per-
Results and Conclusions essotti et al., 2003), thus posing some problems
The behavioral data revealed significantly faster for current computational and neural models of
responses for high-frequency than for low- visual-word recognition.
frequency words (656 vs. 702 ms) and signifi-
cantly faster responses for lowercase than for “Figure 1. Grand average ERP waves to Fre-
uppercase words (675 vs. 683 ms). There were quency and case manipulations in one repre-
no signs of an interaction between the two fac- sentative electrode. Different columns mark the
tors. The error data revealed the same pattern as four epochs under analysis”
the response time data.
107
References letin & Review, 19:677–684. doi: 10.3758/s13423-
012-0251-9
Andrew Duchon, Manuel Perea, Nuria Sebastián-
Gallés, Antonia Martí and Manuel Carreiras. 2013. Stanislas Dehaene, Laurent Cohen, Mariano Sigman
EsPal: One-stop shopping for Spanish word prop- and Fabien Vinckier. 2005. The neural code for
erties. Behavior Research Methods, 45:1246–1258 written words: A proposal. Trends in Cognitive
doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0326-1 Sciences, 9:335–341.
doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.05.004
Arthur M. Jacobs, Jonathan Grainger and Ludovic
Ferrand. 1995. The incremental priming technique:
A method for determining within-condition prim-
ing effects, Perception & Psychophysics, 57:1101–
1110. doi:10.3758/BF03208367
Francesca Peressotti, Roberto Cubelli and Remo Job.
2003. On recognizing proper names: The ortho-
graphic cue hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology,
47:87–116. doi:10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00004-5
Jeffrey S. Bowers, Gabriella Vigliocco and Richard
Haan. 1998. Orthographic, phonological, and artic-
ulatory contributions to masked letter and word
priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Human Perception and Performance, 24:1705–
1719. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.24.6.1705
Jonathan Grainger, Arnaud Rey and Stéphane Dufau.
2008. Letter perception: from pixels to pandemoni-
um. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12:381-387.
doi:10.1016/j.tics.2008.06.006
Kate Mayall and Glyn W. Humphreys. 1996. Case
mixing and the task-sensitive disruption of lexical
processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22:278–294.
doi:10.1037/0278-7393.22.2.278
Kenneth I. Forster and Chris Davis. 1984. Repetition
priming and frequency attenuation in lexical ac-
cess. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learn-
ing, Memory, & Cognition, 10:680–698.
doi:10/1037/0278-7393.10.4.680
Manuel Perea and Eva Rosa. 2002. Does “whole word
shape” play a role in visual word recognition? Per-
ception and Psychophysics, 64:785–794.
doi:10.3758/BF03194745
Manuel Perea, Maria Jiménez and Pablo Gomez.
2014. A challenging dissociation in masked identi-
ty priming with the lexical decision task. Acta
Psychologica, 148:130–135.
doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.01.014
Marta Vergara-Martínez, Manuel Perea, Pablo Gómez
and Tamara Y. Swaab. 2013. ERP correlates of let-
ter identity and letter position are modulated by
lexical-frequency. Brain and Language, 125: 11–
27. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2012.12.009
Mei-Ching Lien, Philip A. Allen and Caitlin Craw-
ford. 2012. Electrophysiological evidence of dif-
ferent loci for case-mixing and word-frequency ef-
fects in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bul-
108