4.4 Article

Neural correlates of morphological decomposition during visual word recognition

期刊

JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE
卷 19, 期 12, 页码 1983-1993

出版社

MIT PRESS
DOI: 10.1162/jocn.2007.19.12.1983

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDCD NIH HHS [DC007315] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Considerable behavioral research has demonstrated that the visual word recognition system is sensitive to morphological structure. It has typically been assumed that analysis of morphologically complex words occurs only when the meaning of these words can be derived from the meanings of their constituents (e.g., hunter = hunt + er). However, results from recent behavioral research using the masked priming technique have demonstrated that morphological analysis can occur at an earlier orthographic level, in cases in which the meanings of complex words cannot be derived from their constituents (e.g., corner = corn + er). Here, we combine the logic of behavioral masked priming with the neurophysiological phenomenon of functional magnetic resonance imaging priming suppression to look for evidence of nonsemantic morphological priming at the neural level. Both behavioral and functional magnetic resonance imaging results indicated priming effects associated with the mere appearance of morphological structure (corner-CORN). In addition, these effects were distinguishable from lexical-semantic effects (bucket-PAIL) and orthographic effects (brothel-BROTH). Three left-lateralized occipito-temporal regions showed sensitivity to early morphological components of visual word recognition. Two of these regions also showed orthographic priming (similar to BA 37, peak: -48 -60 -17; similar to BA 19, peak: -40 -77 -1), whereas one was sensitive only to morphological similarity between primes and targets (similar to BA 19, peak: -37 -67 -7). These findings provide a neurobiological basis for a purely structural morphemic segmentation mechanism operating at early stages of visual word recognition.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据