4.5 Article

Hemispheric asymmetries in font-specific and abstractive priming of written personal names: Evidence from event-related brain potentials

Journal

BRAIN RESEARCH
Volume 1117, Issue -, Pages 195-205

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.08.070

Keywords

hemisphere; asymmetry; personal name; recognition; priming; font; event-related brain potential; N200; N250r; N400

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We assessed hemispheric differences in font-specific and abstractive repetition priming for famous persons' names. Participants performed speeded familiarity judgments for foveally presented famous and unfamiliar names. Famous target names were preceded by primes (150 ms) in the left or right visual field (LVF or RVF). Primes were either the same name as the target written in the same font (font-specific priming), the same name in a different font (abstractive priming), or a different name (unprimed condition). In reaction times, LH superiority was strong for abstractive priming across fonts, but was reduced to insignificance for font-specific priming. We observed 3 different ERP modulations of priming for target names: a small font-specific posterior N200 (160-220 ms), a left temporal N250r (220-300 ms), and an N400 modulation (300-500 ins). The left temporal N250r exhibited large and abstractive priming for RVF primes, but smaller and font-specific priming for LVF primes. N400 effects were observed in all priming conditions. With respect to previous findings that N200, N250r, and N400 reflect facilitation at the levels of font-specific encoding, lexical entries for names, and semantic processing, respectively, these findings suggest that the LH superiority for name processing is particularly pronounced for the access to abstractive lexical entries for written names, a process that may be mediated by the left fusiform cortex (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available